Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Sanjay Mukhiya on 28 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 113/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0207052011
State Vs. (1) Sanjay Mukhiya
S/o Bacchalal Mukhiya
R/o Village Ladaniya,
Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar.
(Convicted)
(2) Ranjit
S/o Ravi Shankar
R/o Village Nahil, PS Kubaya,
Distt.: Shahjahanpur, Bihar.
(Convicted)
(3) Umesh Mukhiya
S/o Sube Mukhiya
R/o Village Kabilasa PS Ladaniya
Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar.
(Convicted)
(4) Suraj Kumar Mukhiya
S/o Laxmi Mukhiya
R/o Village Kabilasa PS Ladaniya
Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar.
(Convicted)
(5) Sant Kumar @ Rajesh
S/o Ram Dayal
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 1 of 117
R/o House No. D 306, Extension II
Nangloi, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
(6) Pradeep Yadav
(Since Proclaimed Offender)
FIR No. : 137/2011
Police Station : Maurya Enclave
Under Section : 395/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code.
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 17.05.2012
Date on which orders were reserved : 10.10.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced :14.10.2014
JUDGMENT:
BRIEF FACTS:
(1) As per the allegations, on 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM at House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Maurya Enclave, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya and Ranjeet Kumar along with one Pradeep Yadav (Since Proclaimed Offender) and one Amlesh Yadav (since Juvenile), committed a dacoity of two laptops make SONY and HP and cash Rs.13,25,000/ and 15 to 20 Tolas of gold jewellery, artificial jewellery, coins and foreign currency and mobile phone belonging to the complainant Veena Manchanda and her family members. It is further alleged that during the commission of the dacoity as aforesaid, the accused Ranjeet Kumar used a deadly weapon i.e. Khukri.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 2 of 117
(2) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at Nangloi Railway Station the accused Suraj Mukhiya dishonestly received / retained stolen property i.e. Rs 1.5 lacs, a black color NOKIA E72, two writs watches, 14 silver coins of 10 gm each, four artificial bangles of golden color, two gold bangles, a diamond ring with gold, a pair of gold tops, two boarding passes of Manchanda / Harpreet Kaur and two small silver kara, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(3) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at New Delhi Railway Station, the accused Umesh Mukhiya dishonestly received / retained stolen property i.e. Rs. One lac, two writs watches, one laptop SONY VIO, five artificial jewelery, one passport in the name of Dalbir Singh Manchanda, ten silver coins of 10 gm each, to gold kara, a diamond ring with gold, a mangalsutra black color with gold and two silver pyajeb gold plated, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 3 of 117 (4) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at New Delhi Railway Station, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. one handicam of make SONY, one laptop make HP, Rs. two lacs, two writs watches, two bangles of gold with diamond, one gold chain of platinum color, one gold kara gents, one gold and diamond mixed ring, one gold locket and one PAN card of Sandeep Kumar, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(5) It is further alleged that on 04.05.2011 at House No. D306 Extension, 2D Nangloi, Delhi, the accused Sant Kumar @ Rajesh dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. Rs, one lac ninety one thousand, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(6) It is also alleged that 03.05.2011 at Nangloi Railway Station Ranjeet Kumar dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. Rs. 1.65 lacs, two writ watches, two gold bangles, one gold chain, one pair of State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 4 of 117 ear tops, four silver coins of 20 gms, one silver coin of 50 gm, one silver biscuit of 20 gm, one receipt in the name of Veena Manchanda dated 26.12.2006, 1215 US dollar, 70 Hong Kong dollar, 124 China Yuan and 10 Dihram, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:
(7) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 3.5.2011 on receipt of DD No. 53B, SI Pukhraj along with Ct. Karanvir reached at the spot of incident i.e. House No. 202, Pitampura where Inspector P. C. Mann was already present with the complainant Veena Manchanda and after sometime Inspector Satender Gosain also reached at the spot and recorded statement of Veena Manchanda.
(8) In her statement to the police, the complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda alleged that 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM she was alone at her above house and her servant Sanjay was sitting in the lobby while she was inside her room and was taking medicine after taking her lunch. She has further stated that the AC of her room was on and suddenly five persons entered her room while Sanjay remained sitting in the lobby. She has further stated that Suraj, Pardeep, Umesh, Ranjit and Amlesh entered her State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 5 of 117 room; Umesh who was having red coloured chemical on his hands and tried to close her eyes on which she got afraid at the same time one of them stated "ise farsh par leta do" after which they pushed her on the floor and Pradeep, Suraj and Ranjeet started maarpeet with her while Sanjay removed the keys of the Almirah from the drawer of her bed and he along with Umesh and Amlesh started removing the cash and jeweleries kept in the almirah and when she objected, the accused Ranjeet showed her a knife and threatened her not to raise an alarm. She has further stated that Suraj pushed her neck towards the floor so that she is not in a position to see anything but in that process she gave a teeth bite on the finger of Ranjeet and blood started oozing out after which they took her near the bathroom and tied her hands and legs with chunnies while the others went to other rooms and removed two laptops make Sony and HP and after taking all the cash and jewellery, they all fled away from the spot but before that they also lifted her mobile phone and also cut the wire of the land line phone. She further stated that thereafter, she somehow managed to free herself and opened the speaker of land line phone and informed her husband about the incident who at that time was at his shop. She has further stated that when her husband came home and checked the Almirah, he found the cash amount Rs.13 lacs, 15 to 20 tola jewellery, artificial jewellery, coins and some foreign currency and other articles missing. She has further informed the police that Sanjay was employed by them as servant four days prior to the incident; Suraj and State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 6 of 117 Amlesh had also worked in her house as servant and Pardeep was their Chacha who used to meet them (Suraj and Amlesh). She also informed the police that about two years back one Ganesh who was known to these accused, had also worked in her house as servant and these accused including Ranjeet and Umesh used to come to meet Ganesh and hence she knew the accused namely Sanjay, Suraj, Pradeep, Amlesh and Ranjeet prior to the incident.
(9) On the basis of the above statement made by the complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda, Inspector Satender Gosain made an endorsement and thereafter prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct.
Karamvir. During investigations, the accused persons were arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court. CHARGE (10) Charge under Section 395/412 Indian Penal Code was settled accused the accused namely Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya and Ranjeet. Charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act was also settled against the accused Ranjeet. In so far as the accused Sant Kumar is concerned, charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code has been settled against him. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 7 of 117 (11) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW Name of the witness Details of the witness
No. No.
1. PW1 HC Radhey Kishan Police Witness MHCM
2. PW2 SI Sushil Kumar Police Witness - Fingerprint Expert
3. PW3 SI Matadeen Meena Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
4. PW4 HC Suresh Kumar Police Witness who has proved the case
sheet of the accused
5. PW5 HC Rishi Pal Police Witness - Duty Officer
6. PW6 Ct. Karanvir Police Witness who had taken the exhibits
to the FSL
7. PW7 Ct. Mayanand Police Witness who has proved the seizure
of exhibits taken by the doctor
8. PW8 Ct. Ram Chander Police Witness who had taken the exhibits
to the FSL
9. PW9 Ct. Sandeep Police Witness who has proved the seizure
of exhibits taken by the doctor
10. PW10 Ct. Dalbir Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
11. PW11 Dr. Deepti Bhalla Official Witness from BSA Hospital
12. PW12 Dalbir Singh Manchanda Public Witness - Husband of the
complainant
13. PW13 Veena Manchanda Public Witness/ Victim/ Complainant
14. PW14 Rajender Bhatia Authorized Representative of Ms. Global
Gadgets
15. PW15 Neeraj Owner of the Mobile Shop
16. PW16 Rajeev Kumar Official witness who has brought the
Kalandra against the accused Sant Kumar
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 8 of 117
Sr. PW Name of the witness Details of the witness
No. No.
17. PW17 HC Lal Singh Police Witness who was patrolling in the
area
18. PW18 Ct. Bijender Police Witness who was patrolling in the
area
19. PW19 Ct. Sanjay Police Witness who was patrolling in the
area
20. PW20 Harjender Kumar Public Witness - Brother in law of the
complainant
21. PW21 HC Manoj Kumar Police Witness who had joined
investigations with Inspector Satender
Gosain
22. PW22 SI Pukhraj Police Witness who had joined
investigations with Inspector Satender
Gosain
23. PW23 Insp. Bijender Singh Subsequent Investigating Officer
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
1. PW1/1 Affidavit of HC Radhey Kishan HC Radhey Kishan
2. PW1/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 430/11
3. PW1/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 431/11
4. PW1/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 447/11
5. PW1/D RC 55/21/11
6. PW1/E RC 61/21/11
7. PW1/F FSL Receipt
8. PW1/G FSL Receipt
9. PW2/1 Affidavit of SI Sushil Kumar SI Sushil Kumar
10. PW3/1 Affidavit of SI Matadeen Meena SI Matadeen Meena
11. PW3/A Crime Team Report
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 9 of 117
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
12. PW4/1 Affidavit of HC Suresh Kumar HC Suresh Kumar
13. PW4/A Information Sheet of Sanjay Mukhiya
14. PW4/B Information Sheet of Umesh Mukhiya
15. PW4/C Information Sheet of Suraj Mukhiya
16. PW5/1 Affidavit of HC Rishi Pal HC Rishi pal
17. PW5/A FIR
18. PW5/B Endorsement on rukka
19. PW6/1 Affidavit of Ct. Karanvir Ct. Karanvir
20. PW7/1 Affidavit of Ct. Mayanand Ct. Mayanand
21. PW7/A Seizure memo of Plastic Box
22. PW7/B Seizure memo of Box and parcel
23. PW8/1 Affidavit of Ct. Ram Chander Ct. Ram Chander
24. PW9/1 Affidavit of Ct. Sandeep Ct. Sandeep
25. PW9/A Seizure memo of Exhibits, Sample seal and Ct. Sandeep
MLC
26. PW10/1 Affidavit of Ct. Dalbir Ct. Dalbir
27. PW10/A1 Photographs
to A9
28. PW10/B Negatives
29. PW11/A MLC Ranjit Kumar Dr. Deepti Bhalla
30. PW11/B MLC of Veena Manchanda
31. PW11/C MLC of Veena Manchanda
32. PW13/A Statement of Veena Manchanda Veena Manchanda
33. PW13/B Seizure memo of Blood stained Chunni
34. PW13/C Statement of During the TIP Proceeding
35. PW13/D Statement of During the TIP Proceeding
36. PW13/E Statement of During the TIP Proceeding
37. PW13/F Statement of During the TIP Proceeding
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 10 of 117
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by
No. No.
38. PW13/G Statement of During the TIP Proceeding
39. PW14/A Receipt of Sony Vaio Rajender Bhatia
40. PW15/A Receipt of Laptop INTEL Neeraj
41. PW16/A Copy of Kalandra Rajeev Kumar
42. PW17/A Copy of Arrest memo of accused Sant HC Lal Singh
Kumar
43. PW17/B Copy of Personal Search Memo of accused
Sant Kumar
44. PW17/C Copy of Disclosure Statement of accused
Sant Kumar
45. PW17/D Seizure Memo of Currency notes
46. PW20/A Seizure Memo of Articles which were Harjender Kumar
recovered from the bag of accused Suraj
47. PW20/B Seizure memo of Articles which were
recovered from the bag of accused of Umesh
48. PW20/C Seizure memo of Articles which were
recovered from the bag of accused of Ranjeet
Kumar
49. PW20/E Seizure memo of Kukhri/Knnife
50. PW20/F1 Arrest memo of accused Suraj
51. PW20/F2 Arrest memo of accused Ranjit Kumar
52. PW20/F3 Arrest memo of accused Umesh Mukhiya
53. PW20/F4 Arrest memo of accused Sanjay Mukhiya
54. PW20/G1 Personal search memo of accused Umesh
55. PW20/G2 Personal search memo of accused Ranjit Kumar
56. PW20/G3 Personal search memo of accused Sanjay Mukhiya
57. PW20/G4 Personal search memo of accused Suraj State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 11 of 117 Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No.
58. PW21/A Arrest memo of Sant Kumar HC Manoj Kumar
59. PW21/B Disclosure Statement of accused Sant Kumar
60. PW22/A DD No. 53B SI Pukhraj
61. PW22/B Rukka
62. PW22/C Site plan
63. PW22/D Sketch of Khukri
64. PW22/E Seizure memo of Khukri
65. PW22/F Disclosure statement of accused Sanjay
66. PW23/A Charge sheet/ Final Report Insp. Bijender Singh EVIDENCE (12) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Twenty Three Witnesses:
Public Witnesses:
(13) PW12 Dalbir Singh Manchanda has deposed that he is residing at House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi along with his family and he is a businessman and he regularly visits China, Dubai, Singapore etc in connection with his business work. Witness has further deposed that on 03.05.2011 he was at his office at Bhagirath place and there at about 4:05 PM or 4:10 PM he received a telephonic call of his wife Smt. Veena Manchanda and she was crying at that time and informed State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 12 of 117 him that a robbery had been committed in their house by their servant Sanjay whom they had employed about four days ago along with his other associates namely Pardeep, Suraj, Umesh, Ranjeet and Amlesh. According to the witness he passed this information to the police at 100 number from the land line which was installed at his shop/office and immediately moved towards his house and when he reached his residence, police had already reached there. Witness has further deposed that their house was lying ransacked and the almirahs were lying open whereas his relative Rakesh Khurana was already present there at his house as his wife had called him and he and his wife checked their belongings and found that a cash of Rs 13.25 lac and about 20 tolas of gold jewelery, some artificial jewelery articles, foreign currency, coins, laptops and one video camera were missing. Witness has further deposed that his wife also informed him that accused persons had broken the cable of land line phone installed at his house and had also taken the mobile phone of his wife along with them and his wife also informed him that the accused persons had tied her with chunnies but she however got herself untied and after connecting the cable of land line informed him about the incident after which the Investigating officer recorded his statement.
(14) Witness has correctly identified the accused Sanjay, Suraj and Umesh by pointing out towards them as his employees. The witness has clarified that Sanjay was still working as his employee at the time State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 13 of 117 of the incident but Umesh and Suraj were employed with him prior to the incident and had left the job. The witness further states that in so far as the accused Ranjeet and Pardeep are concerned, he cannot identify them because they used to come to his house in his absence when his wife used to be at home and he came to know about their names through her. (15) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he has not got done the police verification of accused Sanjay prior to his employment in his house and same is his answer regarding police verification of accused Umesh and Suraj. Witness has further deposed that they did not notice any other theft from their house during the employment of above mentioned accused as servant in his house.
According to the witness he reached to his house at about 4:50 PM and besides police officials, his wife and Sh. Rakesh Khurana, his son namely Arjun was also present there and his wife told him that accused had given her kicks and fists blows. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly entertained suspicion upon the accused and they have been apprehended on the basis of his suspicion for no fault. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused persons are innocent and have no role in the robbery / dacoity which took place in his house. Witness has denied the suggestion that the recovered articles have been planted upon them only to connect them with the present case.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 14 of 117 (16) PW13 Veena Manchanda has deposed that she is residing at House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi along with her family and is a housewife. According to the witness on 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM she was alone at her above mentioned residence and her servant Sanjay was sitting in the lobby and she was inside her room and was taking medicine after her lunch. Witness has further deposed that the AC of her room was Switched On and suddenly five persons entered her room and accused Sanjay. Witness has identified the accused Sanjay by name and also by pointing out towards him. She has deposed that Sanjay remained sitting in the lobby while accused Suraj, Pardeep, Umesh, Ranjit along with one Amlesh had entered her room. Witness has identified the accused Umesh, Suraj and Ranjeet by pointing out towards them as well by their names and has voluntarily added that accused Suraj, Amlesh (JICL) had worked in her house as servant for about 15 days each within a short span prior to the incident and accused Ranjeet and Pardeep (PO) used to visit her house in order to meet Suraj.
(17) Witness has further deposed that just after entering her room accused Umesh tried to close her eyes and there was some red color chemical on his hands and as such she became nervous. Thereafter, one out of above said accused asked his associates to put her down on the floor and thereafter they threw her on the floor and started giving beatings to her and she also gave kick blows to them and thereafter they caught hold of her legs. According to the witness meanwhile accused Sanjay also State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 15 of 117 entered her room and took out the keys of the almirahs from the drawer of her bed and one of the accused caught hold her and accused Ranjit pointed out a knife on her and the remaining accused started taking out cash and jewelery from the almirahs. Witness has further deposed that accused Ranjit was gagging her mouth in order to prevent her from raising an alarm and in this process she gave a teeth bite on his finger, due to which he started bleeding. Thereafter, they dragged her towards the bathroom and tied her hands, feet and mouth with chunnies. Witness has further deposed that besides jewelery and cash, they had also taken laptops, make SONY and HP as well as mobile phone and left her house after cutting the cable of land line phone. According to the witness she however manage to untie herself and made a call to her husband from another land line phone of TATA which was installed at her house and her husband reached their house. On checking they found cash Rs 13.25 lac, 1520 tolas of gold jewelery, some artificial jewelery, coins and foreign currency missing. Witness has further clarified that the police had reached at her residence prior to reaching of her husband and her statement/complaint recorded by the police is Ex.PW13/A bearing her signatures at point A. (18) Witness has further deposed that on 04.05.2011 she went to Police station Maurya Enclave to hand over the chunnies with which accused persons had tied her and another chunni having blood stains. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 16 of 117 There she identified accused Ranjeet, Sanjay, Umesh, Suraj as well as Amlesh (JICL). According to the witness the blood stained chunni was kept by the Investigating officer in a plastic container and the other two chunnies were kept by the Investigating officer in a separate plastic container and both the containers were seized after sealing the same with the seal of SG vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B bearing her signatures at point A and her blood sample was collected at BSA Hospital on 20.05.2011.
(19) Four envelopes, all duly sealed with the seal of DM relating pertaining to TIP proceedings were opened one by one. The first envelope it was found containing the TIP proceedings of mobile phone make NOKIA E72, two wrist watches, 14 silver coins, four artificial bangles, two gold bangles, one diamond and gold ring, one pair of ear tops, two small silver karas. The witness identified her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings which proceedings are Ex.PW13/C signed by the witness at point A. (20) On opening the second envelope it was found containing the TIP proceedings relating to two wrist watches, two gold bangles, one gold chain platinum color, one gold kara gents, one gold and diamond mixed ring and one gold locket / pendant and the witness identified her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings which are Ex.PW13/D signed by the witness at point A. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 17 of 117 (21) On opening the third envelope it was found containing the TIP proceedings relating to two wrist watches (Timex and Titan) ,four artificial jewelery, 10 silver coins, two gold kara, one diamond ring and gold ring, one mangalsutra black and gold, one pair of tops, two silver gold plated Pajeb and the witness identified her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings which proceedings are Ex.PW13/E signed by the witness at point A. (22) On opening the fourth envelope it was found containing Two TIP proceedings, i.e. one relating to two wrist watches(Orlando and Swatch) ,four silver coins 20 gms, one silver coin 50 gms and one silver biscuit, two bangles gold, one pair of ear tops, one gold chain on which proceedings the witness identified her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP vide Ex.PW13/F at point A and the second TIP proceedings relating to two wrist watches(seiko and redo),one silver key ring, two silver pajeb, two silver bangles, one gold ring and three gold pandles, three show piece, twenty two pieces of artificial jewelery and 27 silver coins where the witness identified her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings ide Ex.PW13/G signed by her at point A. (23) Witness has correctly identified a khukhri/knife along with its cover as the same which was used by accused Ranjit at the time of commission of dacoity. The knife is EX P1. Witness has correctly State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 18 of 117 identified one plastic container having a chunni having brown stains as the same chunni with which the accused had tied her mouth and has explained that the said chunni had got stainsed with blood which oozed from her mouth and from the finger of accused Ranjeet. The chunni is Ex.P2. Witness has correctly identified two chunnies which were packed in a plastic container and shown to her, as the same as the same chunnies with which the accused had her hands and feet. The said Chunnies are collectively Ex.P3.
(24) She has also produced in the court some articles out of the articles which she got released on superdari stating that all these articles coupled with other articles were robbed by the accused persons and were later on recovered by the police from their possession. The said articles are Laptop with charger Ex.P4, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters) collectively Ex.P5, two gents gold kadas collectively Ex.P6, four ladies gold bangles collectively Ex.P7, two gold ladies kadas collectively Ex.P8 and two diamond and gold bangles collectively Ex.P9, four gold chains with pendents collectively Ex.P10, one gold mangalsutra Ex.P11, three gold pendents collectively Ex.P12, four gold ladies rings collectively Ex.P13, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings collectively Ex.P14, one box containing foreign currency coins which collectively State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 19 of 117 Ex.P15, one box containing Indian currency coins collectively Ex.P16 and foreign currency notes which collectively Ex.P17. (25) Witness has deposed that she is unable to produce rest of the articles which she got released on superdari viz Laptop make SONY VIO of pink color, rest of the wrist watches, silver biscuits, payjebs, silver kada, silver bangles, silver key ring, 31 pieces of artificial jeweleries, one handycamp make SONY, two DVDs of SONY, one PAN Card of Sandeep Kumar, one Passport of Dalbir Singh Manchanda, rest of the dollars, receipt, boarding passes, one card of body shop, one mobile phone make NOKIA E72, as the Handycamp and the laptop were belonging to her relatives which she returned to them, foreign and Indian currency she had utilized and some articles which she explained were not traceable in the house.
(26) Court has observed that the photographs of the case property i.e. cash and jewelery have not been produced by the SHO Police station Maurya Enclave who has informed that as per the information given by the MHC (M) the said photographs were handed over by him to the Investigating officer Insp. Satender Gosain who is presently not available in India and the Ld. APP for the State pleaded his helpless for non production of the complete case property for the aforesaid reason. (27) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that when she first saw the accused persons entering her room, State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 20 of 117 there was no weapon in their hands and when they threw her on the ground, at that time Ranjeet took out a knife and when she tried to raise an alarm, at that time accused Pardeep (PO) asked his associates to fire a gun shot on her though she had not seen any fire arm in the hand of accused. According to the witness she telephonically informed her husband at about 4:10 PM and she does not remember as to exactly at what time her husband reached their house and she did not call the police. Witness has further deposed that before the reaching of her husband, her other relatives reached at her house. Witness has admitted that one of the accused was having knife in his hand but he did not inflict any injury upon her with the said knife. Witness has further deposed that the accused Umesh had earlier stolen Rs 20 thousand from the house of her sister where he had worked 78 years before the day of the incident. She has stated that she did not get any police verification of accused Suraj, Amlesh and Sanjay done and has explained that this was not done since they had worked with them only for a week or ten days. Witness has admitted that none of the accused was apprehended at the spot. Witness has further deposed that within 45 hours of the incident accused persons were apprehended by the police and she did not provide the bills of jewelery articles to the Investigating officer as the same were not available with her being her old jewelery.
(28) Witness has further deposed that her husband is having a retail electrical appliances shop at Bhagirath Place and there are 34 State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 21 of 117 employees at his shop. Witness has denied the suggestion that neither Rs 13.25 lacs nor the jewelery were robbed from her house. According to the witness about 15 days prior to the incident they had sold a flat and had received the earnest money out of which Rs 13.25 lacs were lying in their house and the Investigating officer did not ask her as to from where they had got Rs 13.25 lacs. According to the witness all the robbed jewelery articles belonged to him. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused were falsely implicated in the present case or that they did not commit any offence or that the alleged offence was committed by some other persons or that due to enmity accused were falsely implicated in the present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely. (29) PW14 Rajender Bhatia, has deposed that he has been authorized to depose on behalf of M/s Global Gadgets by the Managing Director Sh.Gurvinder Singh. According to the witness he is working with the above organization for about last one year and the receipt Ex.PW14/A has been issued from their shop and it bears the signatures of the salesman at point A. (30) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he has not brought the duplicate bill book and has voluntarily added that he was not asked to bring the same. According to the witness he can not tell the name of salesman who signed the receipt. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 22 of 117 (31) PW15 Neeraj, has deposed that he is the owner of the above mentioned shop which he is running since year 2000. According to the witness the receipt Ex.PW15/A has been issued from his shop and has been signed by Sh. R. N. Sharma, Account at point A. Witness has further deposed that this is relating to purchase of a laptop make HP, DV 2911TX. (32) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he has not brought the original bill book and has voluntarily added that he was not asked to bring the same. According to the witness he can produce the same if asked.
(33) PW16 Rajeev Kumar has brought the summoned record relating to kalandra U/s 41.2/109/102 Cr. P. C. against Sant Kumar @ Rajesh. The copy of the same is Ex.PW16/A (OSR) (running into15 pages). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity granted.
(34) PW20 Harjender Kumar, has deposed that he is residing at KU21, Pitampura, Delhi along with his family and is doing private work. Veena Manchanda is the real sister of his bhabhi/sister in law. According to the witness on 03.05.2011 at about 4:30 PM Veena Manchanda telephonically informed him regarding robbery at her residential house and after receiving this information he along with his bhabhi Urvashi reached at the residential house of Veena Manchanda situated at House No. 202, Vishali, Pitampura. Witness has further deposed that there he State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 23 of 117 saw that the doors of the almirahs were lying open and the articles were lying ransacked and police arrived at the spot and recorded statement of Veena Manchanda and got the FIR registered.
(35) Witness has further deposed that thereafter he along with the police officials reached at New Delhi Railway Station and on his identification the accused Sanjay and Umesh were apprehended with the help of SI Pukhraj and Cash and jewelery articles were recovered from the possession of Sanjay and Umesh. According to the witness thereafter he along with police party and both the accused Sanjay and Umesh reached at Nangloi Railway Station from where three more accused were apprehended whereas one accused managed to escape. He has deposed that Cash and Jewelery articles were recovered from the possession of those three accused also who were apprehended at Nangloi railway station. Witness has further deposed that one knife/khukhri was recovered from the possession of accused Ranjeet who was apprehended at Nangloi Railway Station and the recovered articles were kept in containers and were sealed with the seal of SG. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they all along with all the five accused in custody reached at police station Maurya Enclave and the seizure memo of the articles which were recovered from the bag of accused Suraj Mukhiya is Ex.PW20/A. Witness has further deposed that the seizure memo of the articles which were recovered from the bag of accused Umesh Mukhiya is Ex.PW20/B State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 24 of 117 and the seizure memo of the articles which were recovered from the bag of accused Ranjeet Kumar is Ex.PW20/C and the seizure memo of the articles which were recovered from the bag of accused Sanjay Mukhiya is Ex.PW20/D and Seizure memo of Khukhri/knife is Ex.PW20/E. Witness has further deposed that arrest memos of accused Suraj Kumar, Ranjeet Kumar, Umesh Mukhiya and Sanjay Mukhiya are respectively Ex.PW20/F1 to Ex.PW20/F4 and personal search memos of accused Umesh Mukhiya, Ranjeet Kumar, Sanjay Mukhiya and Suraj Mukhiya are respectively Ex.PW20/G1 to Ex.PW20/G4.
(36) Witness has identified the accused Sanjay, Umesh, Ranjit and Suraj in the court. He has also identified a khukhri/knife along with its cover as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Ranjit. The knife is Ex.P1. Witness has also identified the case property i.e. laptop with charger Ex.P4, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters) collectively Ex.P5, two gents gold kadas collectively Ex.P6, four ladies gold bangles collectively Ex.P7, two gold ladies kadas collectively Ex.P8 and two diamond and gold bangles collectively Ex.P9, four gold chains with pendents collectively Ex.P10, one gold mangalsutra Ex.P11, three gold pendents collectively Ex.P12, four gold ladies rings State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 25 of 117 collectively Ex.P13, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings collectively Ex.P14, one box containing foreign currency coins which collectively Ex.P15, one box containing Indian currency coins collectively Ex.P16 and foreign currency notes which collectively Ex.P17.
(37) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he was at his home when he received a telephonic call of Veena Manchanda. According to the witness the distance between his house and the house of Veena Manchanda is about half a kilometer. He has explained that he is having his private work in Shalimar Bagh. Witness has further deposed that he visits the house of Veena Manchanda sometimes fortnightly and sometimes once in a month. He has further explained that prior to the day of incident he had visited the house of Veena Manchanda about 23 months ago. Witness has further deposed that he had seen accused Umesh when he used to work in the house of Veena Manchanda and has voluntarily added that at the time of arrest of accused persons Arjun, son of Veena Manchanda was also with him and police team and he had identified all the accused which were arrested by the police from New Delhi Railway Station and Nangloi Railway Station. Witness has further deposed that he had not seen accused Sanjay prior to his arrest. He has also explained that they had left the house of Veena Manchanda at about 5:30 PM to reach the New Delhi Railway Station and State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 26 of 117 has explained that the accused Umesh and Sanjay were apprehended outside New Delhi Railway Station from beneath the over bridge. According to the witness both the accused were having bags on their back one of which was of grey color. Witness has further deposed that after the arrest of Umesh and Sanjay first they went to police station Paharganj and thereafter they had gone to Nangloi Railway Station. He has stated that they stayed at Paharganj Police Station for about one hour. He has explained that at that time it was about 8:00 PM and it took about 45 minutes to one hour to reach Nangloi Railway Station from Police Station Paharganj. According to the witness he does not remember the exact time when they reached Nangloi Railway Station and accused Ranjeet and Suraj were apprehended from outside Nangloi Railway Station. Witness has further deposed that they had stayed at Nangloi Railway Station upto 10:3011:30 PM and thereafter had returned to Police Station Maurya Enclave. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he did not join the investigations or that none of the accused were arrested in his presence or that nothing was recovered from any of the accused in his presence.
Medical Evidence:
(38) PW11 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, has deposed that on 04.05.2011 patient/injured Ranjeet Kumar and Veena Manchanda were brought to the hospital by Ct. Maya Nand and Ct. Shiv Kant respectively at about State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 27 of 117 12:10 AM and 12:30 AM and at that time she was on duty and she examine both the patients in casualty vide MLC No. 3459/11 and 3461/11.
According to the witness both MLC are Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B both bearing her signatures at point A and after examine the injured Ranjeet Kumar he was referred to Forensic Expert for seeking his opinion. Witness has further deposed that this patient was fit for statement and the injured Veena Manchanda was also fit for statement. According to the witness as per the MLC of Veena Manchanda her nature of injury was found Simple.
(39) Witness has further deposed that on 20.05.2011 at about 9:15 PM patient Veena Manchanda who was examined vide MLC No. 3461 on dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW11/B was again brought to the hospital by Ct. Sandeep for medical examination with written request from the Investigating officer for collecting and sealing the blood sample of Veena Manchanda. Witness has further deposed that accordingly her blood sample was taken and sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over to the duty constable on duty with the directions to be handed over to the Investigating officer. According to the witness thereafter the patient was referred to forensic medicine expert for reporting of the blood sample and she prepared the MLC No. 4038/11 in this regard and the same is Ex.PW11/C. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite an opportunity being granted in this regard. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 28 of 117 Official Police / Witnesses:
(40) PW1 HC Radhey Kishan has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon entry in register No. 19 vide mud No. 430/11, 431/11 and 447/11, copies of which are Ex.PW1/A, (running into nine pages) Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. According to the witness he also relies upon RC No. 55/21/11, RC No. 61/21/11, copies of which are Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E respectively both bearing his signatures at point A and FSL receipts, copies of which are Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively.
(41) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that the case property was brought before the court for TIP Proceedings and some of the part of the case property has been released on superdari and some of the part is still in the Malkhana. Witness has denied the suggestion that the entries in the register No. 19 have been manipulated at the instance of the investigating officer. (42) PW2 SI Sushil Kumar, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (43) PW3 SI Matadeen Meena, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 29 of 117 point A and B. He rely upon crime team report which is Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (44) PW4 HC Suresh Kumar, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW4/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon information sheet of accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya and Suraj Mukhijya which is Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively as per record. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(45) PW5 HC Rishi Pal, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW5/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon copy of FIR which is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (46) PW6 Ct. Karanvir has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW6/1 and he rely upon RC No. 61/21/11 dated 25/05/2011, copy of which is Ex.PW1/E and copy of FSL receipt, which is Ex.PW1/G. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has denied the suggestion that he has tampered with the exhibits when the same were handed over to him by the MHC (M). State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 30 of 117 (47) PW7 Ct. Mayanand, has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW7/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon seizure memo of plastic box which is Ex.PW7/A and seizure memo of box and one parcel which were handed over to him by the doctors which is Ex.PW7/B. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has denied the suggestion that no blood was lifted from the spot in his presence.
(48) PW8 Ct. Ram Chander has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW8/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon RC No. 55/21/11 dated 13/05/2011, copy of which is Ex.PW1/D and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW1/. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite opportunity granted.
(49) PW9 Ct.Sandeep has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW9/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and has he relies upon seizure memo of exhibits and sample seal and MLC which is Ex.PW9/A. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(50) PW10 Ct. Dalbir has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW10/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon photographs which are Ex.PW10/A1 to State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 31 of 117 Ex.PW10/A9 and negatives of the same which are collectively Ex.PW10/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsels despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (51) PW17 HC Lal Singh has deposed that on 4.5.2011 he was posted as HC at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he along with Ct.
Sanjay, Ct. Vijender, Ct. Rajeram were on patrolling duty at about 8 p.m. According to the witness when they reached at the corner of Sidharth Dharam Kanta they saw a person coming towards them on foot who appeared suspicious because as soon as the said person saw them he turned around and started moving away. Witness has further deposed that they stopped him and questioned him with regard to his name and address on which he was not giving any clear answer and started giving them different names and then ultimately he informed that he was Sant Kumar @ Rajesh S/o Ram Dayal R/o D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi when he was staying in the house of Lala Ram. Witness has further deposed that he informed the SHO about the same who advised him to detain the said person under Section 41.2 / 109 Cr. P. C. Thereafter, he interrogated this person Sant Kumar (correctly identified by the witness) and during the interrogation Sant Kumar informed that two of his relatives namely Pradeep and Ranjit had come to his room on 3.5.2011 and left one plastic theli containing currency notes in his room which was the amount they had robbed on 03.05.2011 from Maurya Enclave. According to the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 32 of 117 witness he prepared the Kalandra U/s 41.1 / 109 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW16/A and his arrest memo is Ex.PW17/A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW17/B. According to the witness his disclosure statement is Ex.PW17/C. (52) Witness has further deposed that thereafter they accompanied Sant Kumar to H. No. D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi where the accused Sant Kumar took them to his room. According to the witness there the landlord Lala Ram also joined them and from under the charpai accused Sant Kumar got recovered a plastic theli from the clothes which were lying under the charpai and the theli on opening was found to contain currency notes. Witness has further deposed that he counted the same and found that it contains 176 currency notes of Rs. 1000 each, 30 currency notes of Rs. 500 each, out of which 20 currency notes were bearing the stamp of forged and they were punched and he then converted all these currency notes into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of S. K. and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/D. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he returned to the Police station Nangloi while the accused Sant Kumar was sent for his medical examination with Ct. Sanjay. According to the witness at the Police Station he deposited the case property in the malkhana and informed the SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave about the arrest of accused Sant Kumar and after the return of the accused to Police Station he was put in the lockup and on the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 33 of 117 next day he was produced before the SDM, Punjabi Bagh in the Kalandra U/s 14.1 / 109 Cr.P.C. When the accused was produced before the SDM he also handed over the copy of the kalandra to Inspector Satender Gosai and his statement was recorded.
(53) Court has observed that the currency notes had not been produced in the Court and it was informed that the same had been released on the superdari. The MHC (M) has also not produced the photographs and the SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave informed that as per information from the MHC (M) the coloured photographs of the superdari articles including currency notes were handed over to the Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosai which have not been placed on judicial record nor produced in the court.
(54) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that at the time of the apprehension of the accused they were all in uniform and were on foot patrolling. Witness has admitted that the place around the Dharam Kanta has other shops and lot of people pass through the area and when he was interrogating accused Sant Kumar he did not ask any public persons including the employee of the Dharam Kanta to join the interrogation and has voluntarily added that he had asked 45 passerbye's to join but they refused. According to the witness he can not tell the names and details of the said public persons who refused to join and also has admitted that he did not give any notice to them for their refusal to join the investigation. Witness has denied the suggestion that the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 34 of 117 accused Sant Kumar was not stopped in the manner as alleged by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that Lala Ram was known to him earlier. Witness has further deposed that the house where Sant Kumar took them was a three storied house. Witness has admitted that large number of other families were also residing there. Witness has further deposed that the room where Sant Kumar took them was open and not locked and has voluntarily explained that his wife was present in the room. According to the witness the signatures of the wife of Sant Kumar was taken only on the arrest memo and not on other documents including seizure memo. Witness has further deposed that he did not call any other person residing in the adjoining rooms to join the seizure proceedings and also did not obtain the signatures of wife of Sant Kumar on the seizure memo. Witness has denied the suggestion that Sant Kumar was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that no plastic theli was recovered from the house of Sant Kumar or same was planted on him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of higher officials. (55) PW18 Ct. Bijender has deposed that on 4.5.2011 he was posted as constable at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he along with HC Lal Singh, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Rajeram were on foot patrolling duty at about 8 p.m. According to the witness when they reached at the corner of Sidharth Dharam Kanta they saw a person coming towards them on foot who appeared to be suspicious because as soon as the said person saw State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 35 of 117 them he turned around and started moving away on which they apprehended him and questioned him with regard to his name and address but the said person was not giving any clear answer and started giving them different names. Witness has further deposed that ultimately the said person informed them that he was Sant Kumar @ Rajesh S/o Ram Dayal R/o D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi when he was staying in the house of Lala Ram. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh informed the SHO about the same and thereafter detained him U/s 41.2 / 109 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he interrogated this person Sant Kumar (whom the witness has correctly identified) and during the interrogation he informed that two of his relatives namely Pradeep and Ranjit had come to his room on 3.5.2011 and left one plastic theli containing currency notes in his room which was the amount which they had robbed on 03.05.2011 from Maurya Enclave. Witness has further deposed that he prepared the Kalandra U/s 41.1 / 109 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW16/A, his arrest memo is Ex.PW7/A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW17/B and his disclosure statement is Ex.PW17/C. (56) Witness has further deposed that thereafter they accompanied Sant Kumar to H. No. D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi, where the accused Sant Kumar took them to his room. According to the witness there the landlord Lala Ram also joined them and thereafter the accused Sant Kumar got recovered a plastic theli from the clothes which were lying State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 36 of 117 under the charpai. Witness has further deposed that the theli on opening was found to contain currency notes and HC Lal Singh counted the same and found that it was total of Rs.1,91,000/ and out of which there were 176 currency notes of Rs.1000 each, 30 currency notes of Rs. 500 each, out of which 20 currency notes were bearing the stamp of forged and were punched. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh then converted all these currency notes into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of S.K. and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/D. According to the witness the seal after use was handed over to him and thereafter they returned to the Police station Nangloi and his statement was recorded and he was relieved.
(57) Court has observed that the currency notes have not been produced in the Court and it was informed that the same had been released on the superdari. Further, the MHC (M) has also not produced the photographs and the SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave informed that as per information from the MHC (M) the colour photographs of the superdari articles including currency notes were handed over to the Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosai which have not been placed on judicial record nor produced in the court.
(58) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that at the time of the apprehension of the accused they were all in uniform and were on foot patrolling. Witness has admitted that the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 37 of 117 place around the Sidharth Dharam Kanta has other shops and lot of people pass through the area. He has stated that when the accused was interrogated HC Lal Singh had asked public persons to join the interrogation and he had also asked employees of Dharam Kanta to join the interrogation but they refused and has voluntarily added that HC Lal Singh had asked 45 passersby to join but they refused. According to the witness he can not tell the names and details of the said public persons who had refused to join and stated that he did not give any notice to them for refusal to join the investigation. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Sant Kumar was not stopped in the manner as alleged by him. Witness has further denied the suggestion that Lala Ram was known to him earlier. According to the witness he does not recollect how much construction was present in the house where Sant Kumar took them and has voluntarily added that he took them to the first floor. Witness has admitted that large number of other families were also residing there. Witness has further deposed that the room where Sant Kumar took them was open and not locked and only the wife of Sant Kumar was present in the room and the signatures of the wife of Sant Kumar was taken only on the arrest memo and not on any other documents including seizure memo. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh did not call any other persons residing in the adjoining rooms to join the seizure proceedings and he also did not obtain the signatures of wife of Sant Kumar on the seizure memo. Witness has denied the suggestion that Sant Kumar was State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 38 of 117 lifted from his house and falsely implicated in present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that no plastic theli was recovered from the house of Sant Kumar or same was planted on him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of senior officials. (59) PW19 Ct. Sanjay has deposed that on 4.5.2011 he was posted as HC at Police Station Nangloi and on that day he along with HC Lal Singh, Ct.Bijender, Ct. Rajeram were on patrolling duty at around 8 p.m. According to the witness when they reached at the corner of Sidharth Dharam Kanta they saw a person coming towards them on foot who appeared to be suspicious because as soon as he saw them he turned around and started moving away. Witness has further deposed that he along with others went to him and stopped him and made inquiries from him but he did not give any clear answers and started giving them different names and ultimately informed them that he was Sant Kumar @ Rajesh S/o Ram Dayal R/o D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi where he was staying in the house of Lala Ram. Witness has further deposed that on which HC Lal Singh informed the SHO about the same and thereafter detained him U/s 41.2 / 109 Cr.P.C. HC Lal Singh interrogated this person Sant Kumar (correctly identified by the witness) and during the interrogation Sant Kumar told them that he had some cash at home and they should accompany him to his house. Witness has further deposed that he also informed them that two of his relatives namely Pradeep and Ranjit had come to his room on 03.05.2011 and left one plastic theli State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 39 of 117 containing currency notes in his room which was the amount they had robbed on 03.05.2011 from Maurya Enclave and HC Lal Singh prepared the Kalandra U/s 41.1 / 109 Cr. P. C. which is Ex.PW16/A, his arrest memo is Ex.PW17/A and his personal search memo is Ex.PW17/B and his disclosure statement is Ex.PW17/C. (60) Witness has further deposed that thereafter they accompanied Sant Kumar to H. No. D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi where the accused Sant Kumar took them to his room and in the meanwhile the landlord Lala Ram also came to the spot and joined the proceedings. According to the witness from under the charpai accused Sant Kumar got recovered a plastic theli from the clothes which were lying under the charpai and the theli on opening was found to contain currency notes. Witness has further deposed that on counting the same it was found to be Rs 1,91,000/ out of which 176 currency notes of Rs. 1000 each, 30 currency notes of Rs. 500 each, out of which 20 currency notes were bearing the stamp of forged and they were punched. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh then converted all these currency notes into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and sealed the same with the seal of S.K. and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/D. According to the witness thereafter he took the accused to SGM Hospital for getting the medical examination of accused Sant Kumar conducted and thereafter they returned to the Police Station Nangloi and accused Sant Kumar was put in the lockup and his statement State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 40 of 117 was recorded and he was relieved.
(61) Court has observed that the currency notes reportedly released on supardari were not produced in the Court. The MHC (M) also did not produce the photographs and as per the information received from the SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave and the MHC (M) the colour photographs of the superdari articles including currency notes were handed over to the Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosai which has not been placed on Judicial Record.
(62) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that at the time of the apprehension of the accused they were all in uniform and were on foot patrolling. Witness has admitted that the place around the Sidharth Dharam Kanta has other shops and lot of people pass through the area and when HC Lal Singh was interrogating accused Sant Kumar he did not ask any public persons including the employee of Dharam Kanta to join the interrogation. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh had asked 45 passersby to join but they refused. According to the witness he can not tell the names and details of the said public persons who refused to join and he did not give any notice to them for their refusal to join the investigations. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Sant Kumar was not stopped in the manner as alleged by him. Witness has also denied the suggestion that Lala Ram was known to him earlier. Witness has further deposed that the house where Sant Kumar took them was a three storied house and has voluntarily added that State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 41 of 117 he took them to the first floor. Witness has admitted that large number of other families were also residing there. Witness has further deposed that the room where Sant Kumar took them was opened and not locked, voluntarily added that his wife was present in the room. According to the witness, the signatures of the wife of Sant Kumar was taken only on the arrest memo but he does not recollect if the signatures were taken on the other documents including the seizure memo. Witness has further deposed that HC Lal Singh did not call any other persons residing in the adjoining rooms to join the seizure proceedings. Witness has denied the suggestion that Sant Kumar was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in present case. Witness has denied the suggestion that no plastic theli was recovered from the house of Sant Kumar or same was planted on him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of senior officials.
(63) PW21 HC Manoj Kumar, has deposed that on 5.5.11 he was posted as HC at Police station Maurya Enclave and on that day he joined the investigation with the Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosai and he accompanied him to Police station Nangloi where he met HC Lal Singh who informed Inspector Satender Gosai that he had apprehended the accused Sant Kumar @ Rajesh U/s 14.1/109 Cr.P.C. and was producing him before the court of SDM, Punjabi Bagh. they accompanied HC Lal Singh to the court of SDM where Inspector Satender Gosai was handed over the copy of the Kalandra by HC Lal Singh which kalandra State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 42 of 117 also contained the personal search, disclosure statement of the accused Sant Kumar. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Inspector Satender Gosai took the custody of Sant Kumar and produced him in the court of Ilaka Magistrate Sh. Neeraj Gaur at Rohini where after the permission of the court he was formally arrested vide memo Ex.PW21/A. According to the witness he was then interrogated outside the court and his disclosure was recorded vide memo Ex.PW21/B and thereafter the Investigating officer obtained a two days police custody remand and they then took the accused to the BSA hospital from where his medical examination was got conducted and then brought him back to Police Station Maurya Enclave and put him in the lockup. According to the witness his statement was recorded and he was relieved. (64) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that in his presence Investigating officer did not join any public persons including the court staff, litigants, lawyers and public persons appearing in the court and has voluntarily added that Investigating officer had asked some public persons who were reluctant but he cannot tell the details of the said persons who had refused. He has admitted that the Investigating Officer did not give any notice to said persons for their refusal. According to the witness he cannot tell if Investigating officer has mentioned this fact in the case diary and he also can not tell if Investigating officer had prepared any refusal memo. Witness has further State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 43 of 117 deposed that it took them about half an hour to interrogate the accused and about 20 minutes to record his disclosure. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sant Kumar had made no disclosure or that Investigating officer had recorded the same of his own after obtaining his signatures on blank papers. Witness has denied the suggestion that he signed the disclosure statement while sitting in the Police station at the asking of the senior officers.
(65) PW22 SI Pukhraj has deposed that on 3.5.2011 he was posted at Police station Maurya Enclave and he joined the investigation with SI Satender Gosai and he was in the area of Police Station in the emergency duty when at about 4.30p.m. on receipt of DD no.53B which is Ex.PW22/A he along with Ct. Karanvir reached at H. No. 202, Pitampura where they met the SHO Police station Maurya Enclave Inspector P.C. Mann who was already present at the spot with the complainant Smt. Veena. Witness has further deposed that after sometime Inspector Satender Gosain also reached at the spot and interrogated Smt. Veena Manchanda and recorded her statement after which he made the endorsement on her statement and handed over to Ct. Karanvir and sent him to the Police station for getting the FIR recorded. According to the witness the said statement is Ex.PW13/A and bears the endorsement of Inspector Satender Gosai vide Ex.PW22/B which bears his signatures at point A which he identifies as he had made the endorsement in his State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 44 of 117 presence. Witness has further deposed that after sometime Crime Team came to the spot and Inspected the spot and took photographs and lifted chance prints and then Incharge Crime Team prepared the report and handed over to Inspector Satender Gosai. According to the witness he then prepared the site plan at the instance of Smt. Veena, which site plan is Ex.PW22/C bearing signatures of Inspector Satender Gosai at point A which he identifies as he had prepared the site plan in his presence. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Satender Gosain then lifted the blood stain from the floor with the cotton and put the same in a container and put the seal of S. G. and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A bears his signatures at point B and Inspector Satender at point C and in the meanwhile Ct. Karanvir returned to the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original therir. Witness has further deposed that one Sh. Harjinder @ Rakesh Khurana was also present at the spot and thereafter he along with Inspector Satender Gosai and Sh. Harjinder Kumar went to the New Delhi Railway Station for search of the accused persons where Harjinder Kumar identified two boys as who were accused Sanjay and Umesh (both accused correctly identified) as the boys who were employed as servant in the house of Smt. Veena and were involved in the decoty incident. Witness has further deposed that they immediately apprehended Sanjay and Umesh and interrogated them and they were both carrying bags. According to the witness the bags of Umesh and Sanjay State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 45 of 117 were checked by Inspector Satender Gosai and from the bag of Umesh Rs. 1 lac cash and jewelery were recovered and from the bag carried by Sanjay Rs. 2 lac cash and jewelery were found. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Satender Gosai then arrested both Sanjay and Umesh and conducted their personal search and the arrest memo of accused Sanjay is Ex.PW20/F4 bears his signatures at point B and signatures of Inspector Satender at point C and of accused at point D. Further, his personal search is Ex.PW20/G3 bears his signatures at point B, Inspector Satender at point C. According to the witness the arrest memo of accused Umesh is Ex.PW20/F3 bears his signatures at point B and signatures of Inspector Satender at point C and of accused at point D whereas his personal search is Ex.PW20/G1 and bears his signatures at point B, Inspector Satender at point C. Witness has further deposed that the entire case property i.e. cash and jewelery were kept in plastic boxes and converted into pullandas and sealed with the seal of S.G. and the case property recovered from accused Sanjay was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/D bears his signatures at point B and of Inspector Satender at point C which he identifies and the same was seized in his presence. Witness has further deposed that the case property seized from accused Umesh is Ex.PW20/B, bears his signatures at point B, Inspector Satender at point C. According to the witness the accused was then further interrogated and they disclosed that their remaining associates namely State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 46 of 117 Ranjit, Suraj, Amlesh and Pardeep would be available at Nangloi Railway Station where they had gone for going to their native village. Witness has further deposed that on receipt of this information they i.e. myself,Inspector Satender, Harjinder @ Rakesh Khurana and both the accused Sanjay and Umesh went to Nangloi Railway Station and there they went to the platform where the accused pointed out towards four boys who were also identified by Harjinder @ Rakesh Khurana as Pardeep, Ranjit, Suraj and Amlesh who were known to him being previous employees of Smt. Veena. Witness has further deposed that both the accused Sanjay and Umesh were then handed over to Harjinder @ Rakesh Khurana whereas he along with Inspector Satender went towards the four boys and manage to apprehend three of them but one boy by the name of Pardeep escaped and all these boys were carrying bags which they then searched. According to the witness from the bag which the accused Suraj (present in the court and correctly identified) was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ and jewelery was recovered and from the bag the accused Ranjit (correctly identified) was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/, jewelery and one khukri was recovered. Witness has further deposed that from the bag the accused Amlesh (correctly identified) was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ and jewelery was recovered.
(66) Witness has further deposed that Inspector Satender Gosain then arrested all the three accused i.e. Ranjit, Suraj and Amlesh and conducted their personal search. According to the witness the arrest memo State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 47 of 117 of accused Ranjit is Ex.PW20/F2 bears his signatures at point B and signatures of Inspector Satender at point C and of accused at point D, his personal search is Ex.PW20/G2 bears his signatures at point B, Inspector Satender at point C. Witness has further deposed that the arrest memo of accused Suraj is Ex.PW20/F1 bears his signatures at point B and signatures of Inspector Satender at point C and of accused at point D, his personal search is Ex.PW20/G4 bears his signatures at point B, Inspector Satender at point C. Witness has further deposed that the case property i.e. cash and jewelery recovered from different accused were kept in separate plastic boxes and converted into pullandas and sealed with the seal of S.G. and the case property i.e. cash and jewelery recovered from the accused Ranjit was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/C bears his signatures at B and signature of Inspector Satender at point C. Witness has further deposed that the case property i.e. cash and jewelery recovered from the accused Suraj was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A bears his signatures at B and signature of Inspector Satender at point C. Witness has further deposed that the khukri recovered from the bag of the accused Ranjit was then put on a paper and its khaka was prepared which is now Ex.PW22/D bears his signatures at point A and signatures of Inspector Satender at point B and thereafter the khukri was measured and it was found to be having total length of 23 cm, with handle measuring 10 cm. Blade 13.5 cm. Witness has further deposed that thereafter khukri was State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 48 of 117 converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of S.G. Which seal was after use handed over to him and the khukri was seized vide memo Ex.PW20/E bears his signatures at point B and of Inspector Satender at point C. According to the witness they then returned to the police station and witness Harjinder was relieved after recording his statement. Witness has further deposed that there the accused were interrogated at length and their disclosure statements were recorded. According to the witness disclosure statement of the accused Sanjay is Ex.PW22/F bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Inspector at point B and accused at point C. (67) Court has observed that the disclosure statements of other accused namely Umesh, Suraj, Ranjit were not present either on the judicial file or on the police file nor they had been supplied to the accused as informed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
(68) Witness has further deposed that thereafter his statement was recorded by Inspector Satender Gosai and he was relieved. Witness has further deposed that on 4.5.2011 he was present in the Police station Maurya Enclave when complainant Smt. Veena came and produced three chunies belonging to her and handed over the same to Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosai and informed that these were the same chunies by which the accused tied her up. According to the witness one of the chunni was having blood stains which was of light green colour and State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 49 of 117 Inspector Satender converted it into pullanda and contained it in a container and sealed it with the seal of SG and the other two chunies were put in separate containers and also converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of S.G. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/B bears his signatures at B, Inspector Satender at point C. According to the witness he can identify the accused as well as the case property.
(69) Witness has identified all the accused in the court. He has also identified a khukhri / knife along with its cover as the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Ranjit. The knife is Ex.P1. Witness has further identified one plastic container having a chunni having brown stains as the same as the same chunni which was handed over by complainant Veena Manchanda claiming that with the said chunni accused has tied her mouth and the said chunni also got blood stains which oozed from her mouth and from the finger of accused Ranjeet. Chunni is Ex.P2. Witness has further identified one plastic container having two chunnies as the same as the same chunnies which were handed over by complainant Veena Manchanda claiming that with the said chunnies the accused had tied her hands and feet. The said Chunnies are collectively Ex.P3. He has also identified the articles produced by superdar Veena Manchanda i.e. laptop with charger Ex.P4, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 50 of 117 watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters) collectively Ex.P5, two gents gold kadas collectively Ex.P6, four ladies gold bangles collectively Ex.P7, two gold ladies kadas collectively Ex.P8 and two diamond and gold bangles collectively Ex.P9, four gold chains with pendents collectively Ex.P10, one gold mangalsutra Ex.P11, three gold pendents collectively Ex.P12, four gold ladies rings collectively Ex.P13, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings collectively Ex.P14, one box containing foreign currency coins which collectively Ex.P15, one box containing Indian currency coins collectively Ex.P16 and foreign currency notes which are collectively Ex.P17, as the same which were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
(70) As already observed, the photographs of the case property i.e. cash and jewelery have not been produced by the SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave nor placed on record by the Investigating officer Insp. Satender Gosain who is presently not available in India and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has pleaded his helpless for non production of the complete case property for the aforesaid reason.
(71) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he arrived at place of occurrence at about 4.40p.m and Inspector P.C.Mann was already present at the spot and before going to the New Delhi Railway station they did not go anywhere else. According State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 51 of 117 to the witness different teams were sent to Old Delhi Railway Stations and also to Nizamuddin and Bus Stand but he along with Inspector Satender had gone to New Delhi Railway Station. He is unable to tell the details of the other teams and who headed them. Witness has further deposed that he did not make any separate Wapsi in the Police station but he was not aware if Inspector Satender had made any Wapsi. According to the witness when they apprehended accused Sanjay and Umesh at the Railway Station nobody was joined in the investigation including staff of railway police, local police, or public persons. Witness has admitted that the seizure memos were prepared by Inspector Satender there are no signatures of any independent public person like railway official, local police, passengers, coolies etc. Witness has further deposed that the accused were apprehended from outside the railway stations and in his presence Investigating officer did not make any efforts to ascertain whether CC TVs were installed where the accused were apprehended. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Sanjay and Umesh were not apprehended from New Delhi Railway Station and it is for this reason that the footage of the CC TVs installed at various places has been deliberately withheld from the court since it would have expose their lies. Witness has further deposed that they remained at the railway station about one hour. they left the Police station at 9:00 p.m.and they had traveled to the railway station in official gypsy. According to the witness the official gypsy was driver by the official driver but he do not recollect State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 52 of 117 the name of the driver and the Investigating officer did not record the statement of the driver of the gypsy in his presence and he can not tell if he had taken the log book of the relevant day into possession and filed the same along with the charge sheet. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he along with Inspector Satender, two accused and Harjinder along with the official driver went to the Police station Nangloi. According to the witness he cannot tell if Inspector Satender had informed the SHO or senior officers about the alleged disclosure of the accused Sanjay and Umesh regarding the presence of other four accused at Railway Station Nangloi. Witness has further deposed that the distance between Police station Maurya Enclave and Railway Station Nangloi is 15 kilometers and the distance between the new Delhi Railway Station and Railway Station Nangloi is 13 kilometers they reached the Nangloi Railway Station at about 10 p.m. and remained there till about one hour. Witness has further deposed that nobody from the local police, Railway Police, Railway Staff or public persons were joined at Nangloi railway station and the other accused including Sanjay and Umesh who were already with them did not try to escape nor resisted and has voluntarily added that only Pardeep escaped. Witness has further deposed that they did not take any assistance from anybody for purposes of apprehension of accused and their detention and all the accused who were subsequently apprehended i.e. Suraj, Ranjit and Amlesh were also put in the official gypsy and thereafter they returned to the Police station Maurya Enclave. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 53 of 117 Witness has further deposed that they reached back to the Police station Maurya Enclave at about 12 midnight. According to the witness he do not recollect if the medical examination of the accused persons were got conducted prior to taking them to the Police station and he cannot tell if their medical was got conducted since he was relieved at night itself. Witness has further deposed that in his presence complainant was never called to the Police station for identification of the accused. Witness has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements of the accused were recorded in his presence it is for this reason that the disclosures of the accused Umesh, Ranjit and Suraj were not present on record. Witness has denied the suggestion that disclosure statement of the accused Sanjay was recorded by Inspector Satender of his own or that he merely signed the same on his asking while sitting in the police station. Witness has denied the suggestion that there were no recoveries affected from accused Sanjay, Umesh, Ranjit and Suraj or that the same were planted upon him in connivance with the complainant only to create evidence against them or that it is for this reason that he was unable to give the exact details of the recovered articles. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated only to work out the blind case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the directions of the senior officers.
(72) PW23 Inspector Bijender Singh has deposed that he is posted at Police Station Maurya Enclave since 23.5.2012. According to State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 54 of 117 the witness the Investigating Officer of this case i.e. Inspector Satyender Gosain was not in India being on extraordinary leave and is in Tanzania (Africa) at present. Witness has further deposed that he has been authorized by the senior officers to identify the signatures and handwriting of Investigating officer Inspector Satyender Gosain in the present case. Witness has further deposed that the record reveals that after completion of the investigations, Inspector Satyender Gosain prepared the charge sheet and final Report (under Section 173 Cr. P.C.) prepared by the Investigating officer is collectively Ex.PW23/A which bears the signatures of Inspector Satyender Gosain at various pages at Point A which he identify having seen him while signing during the course of official duty.
(73) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has admitted that he has not participated in the investigations of the present case and he was deposing on the basis of the official records in terms of the directions of the senior officers.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE (74) After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein entire incriminating material / evidence against the accused were put to them which they denied. However, they did not examine any witness in defence. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 55 of 117 (75) According to the accused Sanjay Mukhiya he has been falsely implicated. He has stated that he was working as domestic servant in the house of Veena Manchanda for the last 1520 days prior to the alleged incident. According to him, on one occasion there was a quarrel between him and the Arjun the son of Veena Manchanda when Arjun abused him on account of which he left the job. He further stated that on the day of his arrest in this case, he had gone to New Delhi Railway Station to catch train for his native village, when he was lifted by the police at the instance of complainant and he was falsely implicated. He has stated that all the allegations against him are incorrect and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession. (76) According to the accused Sant Kumar he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police and all the allegations against him are incorrect and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession.
(77) According to the accused Suraj Mukhiya he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and all the allegations against him are incorrect and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession and he is innocent.
(78) According to the accused Ranjeet he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and all the allegations against him are incorrect and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 56 of 117 his possession and he is innocent.
(79) According to the accused Umesh Mukhiya he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant because he belong to the same place where Sanjay Mukhiya belongs. He has stated that on the day of his arrest in this case, he had gone to New Delhi Railway Station to catch train for his native village, when he was lifted by the police at the instance of complainant and he was falsely implicated. According to him, all the allegations against him are incorrect and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his possession and that he is innocent. FINDINGS (80) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel, considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused as well as the prosecution and my findings are as under.
Promptness in Registration of the FIR and Arrest of the Accused:
(81) As per the prosecution case the incident in question had taken place on 3.5.2011 at 3:30 PM when the complainant Veena Manchanda was alone at her house bearing No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura and her servant Sanjay was sitting in the lobby while she was in her room when suddenly five persons entered her room and one of them tried to close her State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 57 of 117 eyes and overpowered her and threw her on the floor and caught hold her legs and made her immobile after which one of them took out the keys of the almirahs from the drawer of her bed and one of the accused caught hold her and accused the other one pointed out a knife on her and thereafter they committed the armed robbery of Rs 13.25 lac, 1520 tolas of gold jewelery, some artificial jewelery, coins and foreign currency, electronic items i.e. laptops, make SONY and HP and mobile phone (articles as provided in the list) and thereafter left her house after breaking the cable of land line phone. Thereafter, the complainant Veena Manchanda managed to free herself as she was tied by the assailants with a chunni after which she informed her husband who at that time was at his shop who immediately rushed home and made a call to the police and Ms. Veena Manchanda was first rushed to BSA Hospital where she was provided treatment and thereafter on her statement the FIR was immediately registered by 6:30 PM.
(82) It is a settled law that the promptness in lodging report justifies the inference in the circumstance of the case that the report was not a concocted story. Prompt lodging of FIR is supposed to be true version without any addition, embellishment and concoction. The chances of missing links, outside influence, after thought and additions are removed where memory is fresh and information is given without any loss of time. Where soon after occurrence FIR is lodged, it is difficult to believe that false story was cooked up (Ref.: Bhag Singh Vs. State of State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 58 of 117 Punjab reported in 1971 Cri. LJ 903).
(83) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the incident in question took place on 3.5.2011 at 3:30 PM. The victim was left in the house after being made immobile being tied with chunni's. As soon as she managed to free herself, she made a call to her husband and police was informed. Veena Manchanda was taken to BSA Hospital and provided medical treatment and her statement was recorded thereafter on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The complainant Ms. Veena Manchanda has proved her statement recorded by Inspector Satender Gosain on the basis of which the FIR was registered at about 6:30 PM. It is this promptness in the registration of the FIR which lends credence to the prosecution version and rules out concoction, deliberation or exaggeration of any kind.
Medical/ Forensic Evidence:
(84) The case of the prosecution is that soon after the incident of dacoity after the police reached the spot the victim Veena Manchanda who had received injuries on her face was taken to BSA Hospital for treatment. It is also the case of the prosecution that during the incident the victim Veena Manchanda had given a teeth bite on the index finger of the hand of accused Ranjeet who had pressed her mouth in order to gag her as a result of which he had sustained injuries on the said finger. In this regard the prosecution has placed their reliance on the MLCs of the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 59 of 117 victim Veena Manchanda and the accused Ranjeet which confirms the same.
(85) I have gone through the MLCs of both Veena Manchanda and Ranjeet and considered the testimony of Dr. Deepti Bhalla (PW11) who has proved that on 04.05.2011 Ranjeet Kumar and Veena Manchanda were brought to the hospital by Ct. Maya Nand and Ct. Shiv Kant respectively at about 12:10 AM and 12:30 AM and both were examined by her vide MLC No. 3459/11 and 3461/11 which are Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. She has proved that as per the MLC of Veena Manchanda her nature of injury was found Simple. As per her observation, there was small abrasion over the right index finger of Ranjeet which lend independent support to the oral version of the complainant Veena Manchanda and confirms the bite injury on the index finger of Ranjeet. (86) It is also the case of the prosecution that while Ranjeet had pressed the mouth of Veena Manchanda she had received injuries on her lips and was bleeding and hence thereafter when her mouth was tied with the chunni Ex.P2 it became blood stained as explained by Veena Manchanda in her testimony. The Biology/ Serology report which are placed on record and is perse admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C.
confirms the Human Blood group 'O' on the said chuuni which is the same blood group as that of the victim Veena Manchanda. Hence, I hereby observe that the Forensic Evidence is compatible to the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 60 of 117 prosecution version.
Motive of Crime/ Common Intention:
(87) Case of the prosecution is that the Motive of the Crime was Armed Robbery/ Dacoity and it was given effect to by the servant/ domestic help of the complainant i.e. accused Sanjay Mukhiya along with the exdomestic helps namely Suraj and Amlesh (since juvenile) who too had worked in her house for about 15 days each and by their associates i.e. Ranjeet and Pradeep (since PO) who used to frequent the house of the complainant on the pretext of meeting these domestic helps. In order to give effect to the crime, the accused had entered the house at the time when no one else was at home except the complainant Ms. Veena Manchanda. It is alleged that the manner in which all the accused acted together to tie up the victim and immobilized her and than ransacked the house confirms the Common Intention so attributed to them. (88) Before coming to the evidence on record, I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 61 of 117 subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. (89) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (90) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(91) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 62 of 117 bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428].
(92) In so far as the aspect of Common Intention of the accused persons is concerned, I may observe that Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime.
Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if prearranged or on the spur of State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 63 of 117 the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 64 of 117 was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 793 and reference in this regard is also being made to the case of decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Saleem Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 484/2011 decided on 31.5.2013 by the Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna. (93) Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case and from the evidence on record particularly the testimony of the victim Ms. Veena Manchanda it is writ large that Firstly the manner in which the accused Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj (previous servants/ domestic helps of the complainant), Ranjeet and Pradeep secured the entry into the house through Sanjay Mukhiya (servant/ domestic help of the complainant at the time of the incident) at a time i.e. afternoon when they knew that the complainant would be alone at home, confirms the illegal and malafide intention so shared by the accused.
(94) Secondly the manner in which they together entered the room of the complainant duly armed with knife confirms the preparation and preplanning of the accused.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 65 of 117 (95) Thirdly the manner in which the accused Ranjeet showed the knife to the complainant while Umesh who had red chemical in his hands tried to close her eyes and all of them together pushed her to the floor and hold her legs and gave her beatings, kicks and blows and immobilized her, establishes that the accused had come prepared with full planning. (96) Lastly the manner in which the wire of the landline phone was cut and the manner in which the accused Sanjay Mukhiya (servant of the complainant) removed the keys of the Almirah from the drawer and opened the Almirahs and all the accused then ransacked the Almirahs, lockers and removed the valuables including jewellery, cash, electronics i.e. laptop, mobile phones etc. confirms the Motive so attributed to them. (97) Hence, In view of my aforesaid discussion I hereby hold that the material on record conclusively establishes that the Motive of Crime was to commit Armed Robbery/ Dacoity by immobilizing the complainant/ victim Ms. Veena Manchanda and the manner in which the crime was given effect establishes the prior meeting of mind, pre planning, preparation, Common Consortium and Common Intention of the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Ranjeet, Umesh Mukhiya and Suraj Kumar Mukhiya and others including the Proclaimed Offender and Juvenile accused.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 66 of 117 Ocular Evidence:
(98) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies. (99) The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of the victim Veena Manchanda who was present at the house at the time of incident which finds independent support from the testimony of her husband who returned to the house after receiving the call from Veena Manchanda after the incident.
(100) However, before coming to the evaluation of the testimony of Veena Manchanda the victim and the sole eye witness to the incident, I may observe that where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 67 of 117 to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
(101) Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and firstly coming to the testimony of Veena Manchanda (PW13), the victim and the sole eye witness to the case, the relevant portion of her testimony is being reproduced as under:
"....... I am residing at the aforementioned address along with my family and I am a housewife. On 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM I State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 68 of 117 was alone at my above mentioned residence. My servant Sanjay was sitting in the lobby and I was inside my room and was taking medicine after taking my lunch. The AC of my room was on.
Suddenly five persons entered my room and accused Sanjay (accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness by name and also by pointing out towards him) remained sitting in the lobby. Accused Suraj, Pardeep, Umesh, Ranjit along with one Amlesh had entered my room. At this stage witness has correctly identified accused Umesh, Suraj and Ranjeet by pointing out towards them as well by their names also. Accused Suraj, Amlesh (JICL) had worked in my house as a servant for about 15 days each within a short span prior to the incident and accused Ranjeet and Pardeep(PO) used to visit my house to meet Suraj.
Just after entering my room accused Umesh tried to close my eyes and there was some red colored chemical on his hands as such I became nervous. One out of above said accused, asked his associates to lay me down on the floor and thereafter they made me fall on the floor and started giving beatings to me and I also gave kick blows to them and thereafter they caught hold my legs. Meanwhile accused Sanjay also entered my room and took out the keys of the almirahs from the drawer of my bed. One of the accused caught hold me and accused Ranjit pointed out a knife on me and remaining accused persons started taking out cash and State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 69 of 117 jewelery from the almirahs. Accused Ranjit was gagging my mouth so that I could not raise alarm and in this process I gave a teeth bite on his finger, due to which he started bleeding. Thereafter they dragged me towards the bathroom and tied my hands, feet and mouth with chunnies. Besides jewelery and cash, they had also taken laptops, make SONY and HP as well as mobile phone and left my house after breaking the cable of land line phone. I however manage to untie myself and made a call to my husband with another land line phone of TATA which was installed at my house. My husband reached our house and on checking we found cash Rs 13.25 lac, 1520 tolas of gold jewelery, some artificial jewelery, coins and foreign currency missing. Police also reached at my residence prior to reaching of my husband. My statement/complaint recorded by the police is Ex.PW13/A bearing my signatures at point A. On 04.05.2011 I went to PS Maurya Enclave to hand over the chunnies with which accused persons had tied me and one chunni having blood stains and there I identified accused Ranjeet, Sanjay, Umesh, Suraj as well as Amlesh (JICL). The blood stained chunni was kept by the IO in a plastic container and other two chunnies were kept by the IO in a separate plastic container and both the containers were seized after sealing the same with the seal of SG vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B bearing my signatures at point A. My blood sample was collected at BSA State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 70 of 117 Hospital on 20.05.2011.
At this stage, four envelopes, all duly sealed with the seal of DM pertaining to TIP proceedings are taken out from the Judicial file.
On opening the first envelope it is found containing the TIP proceedings of mobile phone make NOKIA E72, two wrist watches, 14 silver coins, four artificial bangles, two gold bangles, one diamond and gold ring, one pair of ear tops, two small silver karas through the witness Veena Manchanda. TIP Proceedings shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings. Same is now EX PW 13/C signed by the witness at point A. On opening the second envelope it is found containing the TIP proceedings pertaining to two wrist watches, two gold bangles, one gold chain platinum color, one gold kara gents, one gold and diamond mixed ring and one gold locket/pendant through the witness Veena Manchanda. TIP Proceedings shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings. Same is now EX PW 13/D signed by the witness at point A. On opening the third envelope it is found containing the TIP proceedings pertaining to two wrist watches(Timex and Titan) ,four artificial jewelery, 10 silver coins, two gold kada, one diamond ring and gold ring, one mangalsutra black and gold, one pair of tops, two silver gold plated Pajeb through the witness Veena State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 71 of 117 Manchanda. TIP Proceedings shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings. Same is now EX PW 13/E signed by the witness at point A. On opening the fourth envelope it is found containing Two TIP proceedings, i.e. one pertaining to two wrist watches(Orlando and Swatch) ,four silver coins 20 gms, one silver coin 50 gms and one silver biscuit, two bangles gold, one pair of ear tops, one gold chain through the witness Veena Manchanda. TIP Proceedings shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings. Same is now EX PW 13/F signed by the witness at point A. The second TIP Proceedings pertaining to two wrist watches(seiko and redo),one silver key ring, two silver pajeb, two silver bangles, one gold ring and three gold pandles, three show piece, twenty two pieces of artificial jewelery and 27 silver coins through the witness Veena Manchanda. TIP Proceedings shown to the witness and she identifies her signatures below her statement recorded during the TIP proceedings. Same is now EX PW 13/G signed by the witness at point A. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed plastic container duly sealed with the seal of SG having particulars of the case. Same is open after breaking the seal and a khukri/knife State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 72 of 117 along with its cover is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same which was used by accused Ranjit at the time of commission of dacoity. The knife is EX P1.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda No. 2 duly sealed with the seal of FSL NK DELHI. Same is open after breaking the seal and it is found containing one plastic container having a chunni having brown stains and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the same chunni with which the accused has tied her mouth and the said chunni also got blood stains which oozed from her mouth and from the finger of accused Ranjeet. Chunni is EX P2.
At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda No. 3 duly sealed with the seal of FSL NK DELHI. Same is open after breaking the seal and it is found containing one plastic container having two chunnies and same are shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the same chunnies with which the accused had her hands and feet. The said Chunnies are collectively EX P3.
At this stage, witness has produced one laptop make HP along with charger, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters), two gents gold kadas, four ladies gold bangles, two gold ladies kadas and two diamond and gold bangles, four gold chains State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 73 of 117 with pendents, one gold mangalsutra, three gold pendents, four gold ladies rings, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings, one box containing foreign currency coins and one box containing Indian currency coins and foreign currency notes, out of the articles which she got released on superdari stating that all these articles coupled with other articles were robbed by the accused persons and were later on recovered by the police from their possession and were released to her on superdari by the court.
Laptop with charger is EX P4, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters) are collectively EX P5, two gents gold kadas are collectively EX P6, four ladies gold bangles are collectively EX P7, two gold ladies kadas are collectively EX P8 and two diamond and gold bangles are collectively EX P9, four gold chains with pendents are collectively EX P10, one gold mangalsutra is EX P11, three gold pendents are collectively EX P12, four gold ladies rings are collectively EX P13, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings are collectively EX P14, one box containing foreign currency coins which are collectively EX P15 and one box containing Indian currency coins are collectively EX P16 and foreign currency notes which are collectively EX P17.
At this stage, witness submits that she is State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 74 of 117 unable to produce rest of the articles which she got released on superdari viz Laptop make SONY VIO of pink color, rest of the wrist watches, silver biscuit, pajyabes, silver kada, silver bangles, silver key ring, 31 pieces of artificial jeweleries, one handycam make SONY, two DVDs of SONY, one PAN Card of Sandeep Kumar, one Passport of Dalbir Singh Manchanda, rest of the dollars, receipt, boarding passes, one card of body shop, one mobile phone make NOKIA E72, as the Handycam and the laptop were belonging to her relatives which she returned to them, foreign and Indian currency she had utilized and some articles are not traceable in the house at present.
Court observations :The photographs of the case property i.e. cash and jewelery have not been produced by the SHO PS Maurya Enclave who informs that as per the information given by the MHC(M) the said photographs were handed over by him to the IO Insp. Satender Gosain who is presently not available in India.
The Ld. APP for the state pleads his helplessness for non production of the complete case property for the aforesaid reason......."
(102) Veena Manchanda has been cross examined exhaustively wherein she stood by her version. She has also proved the Judicial TIP of the case property. She has explained that when she first saw the accused persons entering her room, there was no weapon in their hands and when they threw/ pushed her on the ground, at that time Ranjeet took out a knife State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 75 of 117 and when she tried to raise alarm, at that time accused Pardeep (PO) asked his associates to fire a gun shot on her though she did not see any firearm in the hands of accused. She has also explained that though one of the accused was having knife in his hand but he did not inflict any injury upon her with the said knife. According to the witness, even previously the accused Umesh Mukhiya had stolen Rs.20,000/ from the house of her sister where he had worked seveneight years earlier from the day of the incident. She has also explained that she did not provide the bills of jewelery articles to the Investigating Officer as the same were not available with her being her old jewelery. Further, she has explained that her husband is having a retail electrical appliances shop at Bhagirath Place and about 15 days prior to the incident they had sold a flat and had received the earnest money out of which Rs.13.25 lacs were lying in their house.
(103) At the very Outset I may observe that Veena Manchanda has told her husband about the names of assailants which she also disclosed to the police and hence the names of all the accused i.e. Sanjay Mukhiya, Ranjeet, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Kumar Mukhiya and Pradeep (PO) are mentioned in the FIR, which lends authenticity to the version given by the her and rules out any concoction, exaggeration or deliberations. (104) Secondly the testimony of Veena Manchanda finds due confirmation from the testimony of her husband Dalbir Singh Manchanda (PW12) who has confirmed that at the time of the incident the accused State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 76 of 117 Sanjay Mukhiya was employed as a servant in their house. He has also confirmed and corroborated the testimony of Veena Manchanda to the extent that prior to Sanjay Mukhiya, the accused Umesh and Suraj had also worked in their house as servants and he has identified them all in the Court. However, he has not been able to identify the accused Ranjeet and Pradeep but has explained that his wife Veena Manchanda had at the first instance told him their names and informed him that they used to frequently visit their servants/ domestic helps being their friends and hence she knew them and could identify them. I find this testimony of witness Dalbir Manchanda as reliable. He has identified the accused Sanjay, Suraj and Umesh but not identified the accused Ranjeet and Pardeep and naturally so because Sanjay, Suraj and Umesh had been working at his house being employed as their servants whereas Ranjeet and Pradeep were their friends who normally visited their servants/ domestic helps in his absence during the day. This explains why it was only the complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda, a housewife, who could identify and name Ranjeet and Pradeep. It is only natural that Dalbir Singh Manchanda would not know Pradeep and Ranjeet who used to come to his house in his absence when he was away to his shop and I find this explanation that his wife Veena Manchanda disclosed the names of Pradeep and Ranjeet to him is only natural and probable and his testimony in this regard is truthful and credible and I find no reason to disbelieve the same.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 77 of 117 (105) Thirdly the complainant Veena Manchanda has identified the accused before this Court namely Sanjay, Ranjeet, Umesh and Suraj and also explained the role specifically attributed to them. She has specifically explained that during the incident it was accused Ranjeet who had used the knife and threatened her. She has explained that while the accused Ranjeet pressed/ gagged her mouth so that she does not raise any alarm, she gave a teeth bite on his finger on account of which he received injuries. This aspect finds due corroboration from the MLC of Ranjeet Ex.PW11/B duly proved by Dr. Rajan (PW11) showing the presence of corresponding injury on the index finger of Ranjeet. During this process even Ms. Veena Manchanda had received injury on her mouth being hard pressed by Ranjeet due to which she was bleeding and the chunni with which her mouth was tied i.e. Ex.P2 confirms the presence of blood stains of Blood Group 'O' (belonging to the victim Veena Manchanda) lending independent confirmation to her version. Hence, the ocular evidence and version given by Veena Manchanda finds independent support and confirmation from the Medical and Forensic evidence. (106) Fourthly the complainant Veena Manchanda has also identified the khukri / knife Ex.P1 which was used by the accused Ranjeet and the blood stained chunni Ex.P2 on which the accused had tied her mouth and that is why the said chunni became blood stained as the blood oozed from her mouth and also from the finger of accused Ranjeet. She State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 78 of 117 also identified the two pieces of chunni Ex.P3 as the same with which the accused had tied her hands and legs, which lends credibility and authenticity to her testimony.
(107) Fifthly the complainant Veena Manchanda has in her testimony given a very detailed account of the articles which were stolen and which she has identified during Judicial TIP Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW13/E, Ex.PW13/F and Ex.PW13/G, which identification has not been duly controverted by the accused persons. Even in the court when the various articles/ case property were shown to the complainant Veena Manchanda, she has identified the same i.e. Laptop with charger is Ex.P4, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters) are collectively Ex.P5, two gents gold kadas are collectively Ex.P6, four ladies gold bangles are collectively Ex.P7, two gold ladies kadas are collectively Ex.P8 and two diamond and gold bangles are collectively Ex.P9, four gold chains with pendents are collectively Ex.P10, one gold mangalsutra is Ex.P11, three gold pendents are collectively Ex.P12, four gold ladies rings are collectively Ex.P13, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings are collectively Ex.P14, one box containing foreign currency coins which are collectively Ex.P15 and one box containing State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 79 of 117 Indian currency coins are collectively Ex.P16 and foreign currency notes which are collectively Ex.P17. She has produced some of the articles which she had taken on supardari and has duly identified them i.e. one laptop make HP along with charger, three gents wrist watches (make Timex, Orlando and Rolex) and two ladies wrist watches (make Esprit and name of other wrist watch is not legible being in very small letters), two gents gold kadas, four ladies gold bangles, two gold ladies kadas and two diamond and gold bangles, four gold chains with pendents, one gold mangalsutra, three gold pendents, four gold ladies rings, one pair of gold ear top and one pair of gold ear rings, one box containing foreign currency coins and one box containing Indian currency coins and foreign currency notes and has proved that all these articles coupled with other articles were robbed by the accused persons and were later on recovered by the police from their possession and were released to her on Superdari. (108) She has further offered an explanation for not being able to produce the other articles which she got released on superdari i.e. Laptop make SONY VIO of pink color, rest of the wrist watches, silver biscuit, pajyabes, silver kada, silver bangles, silver key ring, 31 pieces of artificial jeweleries, one handycam make SONY, two DVDs of SONY, one PAN Card of Sandeep Kumar, one Passport of Dalbir Singh Manchanda, rest of the dollars, receipt, boarding passes, one card of body shop, one mobile phone make NOKIA E72, Handycam and the laptop. According to her, State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 80 of 117 some of these articles were belonging to her relatives which she returned to them and in so far as the foreign and Indian currency is concerned, she had utilized the same whereas some articles which were released to her are not traceable in the house. I may note that there was no legal requirement of production of the entire original case property but for the fact that the photographs of the case property released on superdari i.e. cash, jewelery and electronics etc. had neither been placed on record nor produced in the Court, the Investigating Officer of the case Inspector Satender Gosain being on extra ordinary leave (being not available in India) had taken the possession of these photographs which he did not place of judicial file nor handed over the same to the MHCM and hence the need for seeking the production of these articles arose. (109) Sixthly the witness Sh. Rajender Bhatia (PW14) has duly proved the documents / receipts regarding purchase of the mobile which is Ex.PW14/A and Neeraj (PW15) has proved the purchase of Laptop make HP, DV 2911TX vide Ex.PW15/A which the accused have not been able to controvert. These articles were recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjay Mukhiya who when this incriminating material was put to him, was not able to justify and explain the possession of this laptop. (110) Seventhly, in so far as the time of the incident given by the victim Veena Manchanda is concerned which is at 3:30 PM, it finds independent confirmation from the record of the Police Station vide DD State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 81 of 117 No. 53B Ex.PW22/A recorded at 4:25 PM and is also compatible to the time given by Dalbir Singh Manchanda (PW12).
(111) Lastly, all the accused i.e. Sanjay Mukhiya, Ranjit, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj and Amlesh (juvenile) were arrested within hours of the incident on the same day while they were trying to flee from Delhi along with the loot (i.e. robbed articles) which articles have been duly identified by the complainant. I may observe that in so far as the accused Sanjay Mukhiya and Umesh Mukhiya are concerned, they were arrested on the same day i.e. 3.5.2011 at 8:50 PM i.e. within four hours of the incident and a sum of Rs. Two Lacs and jewelery were recovered from the bag of Sanjay Mukhiya and Rs. One lac cash with jewelery were recovered from the bag in possession of Umesh which articles have been duly identified by the complainant Veena Manchanda in the Judicial Test Identification Parade whereas on the other hand when this incriminating material was put to the accused Sanjay Mukhiya and Umesh Mukhiya while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not been able to offer any explanation for the possession of this huge amount of cash, jewelery and electronics found in their possession. I may further observe that it was pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused Sanjay and Umesh, that the other accused namely Ranjeet, Suraj and Amlesh (juvenile) were apprehended from Nangloi Railway Station on the same day i.e. 3.5.2011 at 10:50 PM i.e. within Six to Seven hours of the incident State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 82 of 117 whereas the accused Pradeep Yadav who was also present at Nangloi Railway Station managed to escape/ flee on seeing the police. From the bag which the accused Suraj was carrying, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ and jewellery was recovered; from the bag which the accused Ranjit was carrying, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/, jewellery and one khukri was recovered and from the bag the accused Amlesh (Juvenile) which he was carrying, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/ and jewellery was recovered and when this incriminating material was put to the accused Suraj and Ranjit while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not been able to offer any explanation for the possession of this huge amount of cash, jewelery and electronics found in their possession. (112) Hence, this prompt registration of the FIR wherein all the accused i.e. Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya and Ranjeet Kumar, Pradeep Yadav (Proclaimed Offender) and Amlesh Yadav (Juvenile) have been specifically named; the immediate and prompt arrest of accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet Kumar and one Amlesh Yadav thereafter from New Delhi Railway Station and Nangloi Railway Station coupled with the recovery of looted property (i.e. robbed articles) from their possession which possession the accused have not been able to satisfactorily explain, lends credibility and authenticity to the testimony of the Sole Eye Witness i.e. victim Ms. Veena Manchanda which statement otherwise finds independent reliable State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 83 of 117 confirmation from the Medical, Forensic and Circumstantial Evidence so brought on record and strongly incriminates the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar conclusively connecting them to the incident in question.
Prompt Arrest of Accused Sanjay, Umesh, Suraj and Ranjit and Recovery of Robbed Articles from their possession:
(113) The case of the prosecution is that immediately after the incident and registration of the FIR, police teams were deployed at various places which were known to be the exit points or from where the accused were likely to flee from Delhi one of which was the New Delhi Railway Station and other was Nangloi Railway Station and it was from there that the accused along with the looted property were recovered. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimony of the brother in law of Dalbir Manchanda namely Harjinder Singh (PW20) and SI Pukhraj. It is argued that these witnesses have confirmed that they reached New Delhi Railway Station where it was Harjinder Singh who pointed out and identified Sanjay Mukhiya and Umesh who were in the process of leaving Delhi. Sanjay and Umesh were immediately apprehended and a part of the stolen property was recovered from their possession. They were interrogated where they disclosed that the other assailants were also in the process of leaving Delhi from Nangloi Railway Station on which the police team immediately reached Nangloi Railway State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 84 of 117 Station from where the remaining accused namely Ranjeet, Suraj and Amlesh were apprehended and major part of the Looted/ Robbed property was recovered from their possession whereas one of the assailants i.e. accused Pradeep Yadav managed to escape. It is argued by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State that there is huge recovery of stolen/ robbed property was recovered from the possession of the accused persons within four to six hours of the incident which is highly incriminating qua the accused and lends credibility to the prosecution version.
(114) The Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand has vehemently argued that the entire incident of robbery/ dacoity has been concocted in connivance with the local police and the alleged recovery has been planted on them to lend credence to the story.
(115) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in so far as the apprehension and arrest of the accused is concerned, it has been proved by SI Pukhraj (PW22) whose testimony finds independent corroboration from the testimony of Harjinder Singh (PW20) who was present at the time of apprehension of the accused and has also identified them. In this regard the testimony of SI Pukhraj (PW22) is relevant who has testified that he along with Inspector Satender Gosain and Harjinder Kumar went to New Delhi Railway Station where on the identification and pointing out of Harjinder Kumar (PW20) the accused Sanjay and Umesh were apprehended. He further testified that the bags State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 85 of 117 of Umesh and Sanjay were checked by Inspector Satender Gosain and from the bag of Umesh Rs. 1 lac cash and jewelery were recovered and from the bag carried by Sanjay Rs. 2 lac cash and jewelery were found. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Satender Gosain then arrested both Sanjay and Umesh and conducted their personal search and the entire case property i.e. cash and jewelery were kept in plastic boxes and converted into pullandas and sealed with the seal of S. G. and the same was seized in his presence. Thereafter on the disclosure of Sanjay and Umesh, the remaining accused namely Ranjit, Suraj, Amlesh (juvenile) and Pardeep were also arrested from the Nangloi Railway Station from where they fleeing from Delhi. The sixth boy i.e. accused Pardeep managed to flee and could not be apprehended. On search of the bag which the accused Suraj was carrying a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ and jewelery was recovered and from the bag the accused Ranjit was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/ , jewelery and one khukri was recovered and from the bag the accused Amlesh was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ and jewelery was recovered. All recovered articles were taken into possession by the police. The sketch of the khukri recovered from the bag of the accused Ranjit was prepared vide Ex.PW22/D and thereafter measured and taken into possession. The accused were then interrogated at length and their disclosure statements were recorded. SI Pukhraj has also proved that on 4.5.2011 he was present in the Police Station Maurya Enclave when State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 86 of 117 complainant Smt. Veena came and produced three chunies belonging to her and handed over the same to Investigating officer Inspector Satender Gosain, informing him that these were the same chunnies by which the accused tied her up. He has proved that one of the chunni was having blood stain which was of light green colour and Inspector Satender converted it into pullanda and contained it in a container and sealed it with the seal of SG and the other two chunnies were put in separate containers and also converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of S.G. and thereafter seized vide memo Ex.PW13/B which bears his signatures at B and Inspector Satender at point C. (116) I may note that it was only a matter of chance that the accused Sanjay and Umesh were apprehended at New Delhi Railway Station while they were trying to flee from Delhi along with their booty/ looted articles. Till that time the police was not knowing about the whereabouts of the remaining accused i.e. Suraj, Ranjeet, Amlesh and Pradeep and it was during interrogation that Sanjay and Umesh disclosed the same to them that the police came to know that the accused Suraj, Ranjeet, Amlesh and Pradeep were in the process of leaving Delhi from Nangloi Railway Station. It was pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused Sanjay and Umesh that they led the police team to Nangloi Railway Station where the police found the accused Suraj, Ranjeet, Amlesh and Pradeep present there along with their bags and baggage State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 87 of 117 while they were trying to flee from Delhi. It was then that the accused Suraj, Ranjeet and Amlesh were apprehended whereas Pradeep managed to escape and it was from their possession that the remaining looted/ robbed articles were recovered in huge quantity. Keeping in view the huge recovery of the looted/ robbed articles from the possession of the accused persons, the possibility of planting the same upon the accused, appears to be remote more so when at the first instance the victim has not only named them in the FIR the accused being known to her but has also identified them as well as identified the case property in the Judicial Test Identification Parade. It is this promptness in arrest of the accused and recovery of the looted/ robbed articles from their possession which lends credibility to the prosecution version and this recovery which took place within hours of the incident is a strong pointer towards the guilt of the accused.
Case Against Sant Kumar Not Proved:
(117) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Sant Kumar was known to the accused Pardeep and Ranjeet who after having committed the dacoity immediately went to the house of Sant Kumar and left a thaili containing cash which they had looted from the place of incident. On the very next date of the incident i.e. 4.5.2011 the cash amount which was allegedly left by the accused in the house of Sant Kumar was recovered from by the officials of Police Station Nangloi. As State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 88 of 117 per the prosecution case on 4.5.2011, HC Lal Singh along with Ct. Sanjay, Ct.Vijender and Ct. Rajeram were on patrolling duty at about 8 p.m. and they when reached at the corner of Sidharth Dharam Kanta, they saw a person coming towards them on foot who appeared to be suspicious because as soon as he saw them he turned around and started moving away on which they stopped him and questioned him with regard to his name and address. The said person did not give them any clear answers and he started giving them different names and then ultimately he informed them that he was Sant Kumar @ Rajesh S/o Ram Dayal R/o D306, Extn. 2D, Nangloi where he was staying in the house of Lala Ram.
Thereafter the SHO was informed about the same who advised him to detain him U/s 41(2)/ 109 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that on interrogation Sant Kumar disclosed to the police that two of his relatives namely Pradeep and Ranjit had come to his room on 3.5.2011 and left one plastic thaili containing currency notes in his room which was the amount they had robbed on 03.05.2011 from Maurya Enclave. As per the story put forward by the prosecution, a Kalandra U/s 41(1)/ 109 Cr.P.C. was prepared vide Ex.PW16/A and Sant Kumar was arrested vide Ex.PW17/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW17/B whereas his disclosure statement is Ex.PW17/C. It is further alleged that thereafter Sant Kumar led the police party to H. No.D306, Extn. 2 D, Nangloi where he took them to his room and the landlord Lala Ram also State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 89 of 117 joined them where from under the charpai accused Sant Kumar got recovered a plastic thaili from the cloths which were lying under the charpai. The said thaili on opening was found to contain currency notes which were counted and it was found that it contains 176 currency notes of Rs.1000 each, 30 currency notes of Rs. 500 each, out of which 20 currency notes were bearing the stamp of 'forged' and they were 'punched'. Thereafter he converted all these currency notes into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of S.K. and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/D. Thereafter, they returned to Police Station Nangloi and SHO Police Station Maurya Enclave was also informed about the arrest of accused Sant Kumar who was formally arrested in this case.
(118) I may observe that the said currency notes have not been produced in the court and the prosecution claimed that the same were released on superdari to the complainant. Neither the notes nor the photographs of the property so recovered from the possession of Sant Kumar has been produced in the court and IO Inspector Santender Gosain has also not not been examined nor he proved the case property or its release on supardari. Further, the landlord of Sant Kumar namely Lala Ram who allegedly accompanied the police team, has neither been cited nor examined in the court. He was the best witness who would have independently proved the recovery from the possession of accused Sant State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 90 of 117 Kumar but for the reasons best reason known to the prosecution, the said Lala Ram has not been cited as witness.
(119) I may further observe that Sant Kumar has not been named in the FIR and the only incriminating material against him is his own disclosure which even otherwise is not admissible into evidence. Further, the details of the currency notes also do not find a mention in the list provided or in the FIR and hence in the absence of recovered case property or the photographs proving the same and its nonidentification in the court either by the police witnesses who had recovered the same or by the victim in whose presence it had been looted, I hold that in so far as the accused Sant Kumar is concerned, his case is different from other accused and on the basis of the evidence which has come on record, the charge against him does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence he is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code.
Charge against the accused Ranjeet under Section 27 of Arms Act (not established):
(120) As per the allegations it was the accused Ranjeet who at the time of committing dacoity used a deadly weapon i.e. knife/ khukri upon the victim and had threatened her. In this regard a specific charge under Section 27 of Arms Act was settled against the accused Ranjeet. A judicial notice is taken of the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 91 of 117 bearing No.F.13/203/78Home (C) providing that any any person found in possession of a knife open or close with any of the mechanical device with a blade of 7.62 or more in length and 1.72 cms or more in breadth, in public places should be regulated. In the present case the knife/ Khukri Ex.P1 so recovered from the possession of accused Ranjeet was having a total length of 23 cm with handle measuring 10 cm and blade 13.5 cm.
Though the measurements of the knife/ Khukri so recovered from the accused Ranjeet is clearly beyond the prescribed notified limits, yet I may observe that it is not mechanically operated device and hence technically the provisions of Arms Act would not apply. Therefore, the accused Ranjeet is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act but being a deadly weapon the accused Ranjeet is hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code.
Allegations against the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj, Umesh and Ranjeet - Proved:
(121) On the basis of the evidence which has come on record particularly the evidence against each of the accused i.e. Sanjay, Suraj.
Umesh and Ranjeet the allegations against them stand established. For the sake of convenience I am now putting the specific allegations and the recovery effected from the possession of each accused individually in a tabulated form as under:
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 92 of 117
S. Accused Role of each accused (Proved) Ocular Recovery of No. Name Evidence/ Robbed Articles Identified by from the PWs possession of accused
1. Sanjay He was the servant of Dalbir Singh Rs. 2 lacs cash, Mukhiya complainant/ victim Veena Manchanda Handicam, DVD Manchanda and was the (PW12) Player, Laptop, 2 Mastermind. All other accused gold bangles, Veena persons are his close relatives/ Gold Kadas, gold Manchanda friends. He is the one who chain, Gold (PW13) facilitated the entry of all the Locket, Gold & other accused into the house of Harjinder diamond ring, etc. the victim where he was Kumar employed as a servant when the (PW20) victim Veena Manchanda was alone in the house.
2. Suraj He was the village friend of the Dalbir Singh Rs. 1.5 lacs cash, Mukhiya accused Sanjay and had worked Manchanda Mobile phone as servant in complainant's (PW12) Nokia, 2 wrist house for 15/20 days. Later on, watches, 14 silver Veena he got the accused Sanjay coins, 2 gold Manchanda Mukhiya employed as a servant bangles, Silver (PW13) in the house of the complainant. Kadas, gold He used to regularly meet the Harjinder chain, Diamond accused Sanjay Mukhiya at this Kumar ring, Gold tops, house. (PW20) etc.
3. Umesh He used to work as servant in the Dalbir Singh Rs. 1 lac cash, 1 Mukhiya house of sister of complainant Manchanda Laptop, two wrist (Veena Manchanda) and is a (PW12) watches, Passport close friend of accused Sanjay, of Sh. Dalbir Veena Suraj & others. Singh, 10 silver Manchanda coins, 2 gold (PW13) Kadas, diamond Harjinder ring, Silver Kumar Payjebs gold (PW20) plated, Gold State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 93 of 117 Mangal Sutra, etc.
4. Ranjeet He was the close friend of Dalbir Singh Rs. 1.65 lacs Kumar Sanjay, Suraj and Umesh who Manchanda cash, used to come to the house of the (PW12) 2 wrist watches, 1 complainant earlier to meet Suraj Veena receipt in the and Umesh and later to meet Manchanda name of Sanjay. He used weapon Khukri complainant, 6 (PW13) to commit the above said crime silver coins, 2 which Khukri was recovered Harjinder gold bangles, from his possession and Kumar Gold pair of ear identified by victim as Ex.P1. (PW20) tops, Gold Chain, 1251 US Dollars, 70 Hong Kong, China Currency etc. Weapon of crime i.e. Khukri (Ex.P1).
(122) Hence, it is apparent that on the basis of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses particularly the victim Ms. Veena Manchanda and also on the basis of the Medical, Forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, it stands conclusively established that the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya along with the accused Pradeep Yadav (Proclaimed Offender) and Amlesh (Juvenile) had in pursuance to their common intention committed armed dacoity at the house of the complainant Veena Manchanda and hence in view of the above I hereby hold the accused State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 94 of 117 Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya guilty for the offence under Section 395/34 Indian Penal Code. (123) I may further observe that it stands conclusively established that it was the accused Ranjeet who had used the khukri Ex.P1 on the victim Veena Manchanda for which he is held guilty for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code but as already observed herein above technically the provisions of Arms Act would not apply since the knife/ Khukri so recovered from the accused Ranjeet is not a mechanically operated device and hence he is acquitted for the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act.
(124) In so far as the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code framed against the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya is concerned, I may observe that since the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya have been identified as the same persons who who had committed dacoity upon the complainant/ victim Veena Manchanda, hence technically the provisions of Section 412 Indian Penal Code are not separately made out as the ingredients of Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code stand covered within the definition of Robbery as provided under Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code and technically would cover the offence of Dacoity which is Robbery committed conjointly by five or more persons. Therefore, the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 95 of 117 accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSION (125) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 96 of 117
(126) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the Investigating Officers. The identity of the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Ranjit, Umesh Mukhiya and Suraj Kumar Mukhiya along with accused Pradeep (Proclaimed Offender) already named in the FIR has been conclusively established. On the basis of my above discussion, the following aspects have emerged and stand conclusively established:
➢ That accused Sanjay Mukhiya was employed as a domestic help at the residence of the complainant Veena Manchanda i.e. House No. 2020, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi where the accused Suraj and Amlesh (Juvenile) had also previously worked temporarily as Domestic Helps for about 1520 days. The accused Pradeep and Ranjeet frequented and had access inside this house being friend of these persons i.e. Umesh, Suraj, Amlesh and Sanjay. ➢ That 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM the complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda was in her room at her House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura while her servant i.e. accused Sanjay Mukhiya was sitting in the lobby.
➢ That suddenly the door of her bedroom opened and she saw that accused Suraj Mukhiya, Pardeep (proclaimed State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 97 of 117 Offender), Umesh, Amlesh (Juvenile) and Ranjeet whom she knew previously had entered her room while Sanjay remained sitting in the lobby.
➢ That accused Umesh was having red coloured chemical on his hands and he tried to close the eyes of Veena Manchanda on which she got scared at the same time. ➢ That one of the accused exhorted others saying "Push her on the floor" i.e. "...ise farsh par leta do...." after which the accused pushed her on the floor and Pradeep, Suraj and Ranjeet started beating her and gave her blows and kicks (did maarpitai with her).
➢ That when Veena Manchanda objected to the same, the accused Ranjeet showed her a knife and threatened her not to raise alarm and pressed her mouth.
➢ That in this process Veena Manchanda gave a teeth bite on the index finger of Ranjeet who had gagged i.e. pressed her mouth when blood started oozing out from the index finger of Ranjeet.
➢ That the accused then took Veena Manchanda near the bathroom and tied her mouth, hands and legs with chunnies.
➢ That in the meanwhile Sanjay also entered the room and removed the keys of the Almirahs from the drawer of the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 98 of 117 bed after which he along with Umesh and Amlesh (Juvenile) started removing the cash, electronic and jewelery kept in the Almirah.
➢ That before fleeing/ escaping from the spot, the accused had also lifted her mobile phone and also cut the wire of the landline phone.
➢ That thereafter, Veena Manchanda somehow managed to free and untie herself and opened the speaker of another land line phone and informed her husband about the incident who at that time was at his shop.
➢ That Dalbir Manchanda immediately made a 100 number call and rushed back home and checked the Almirah, when he found a cash amount Rs.13 lacs, 15 to 20 tola jewellery, artificial jewellery, coins and some foreign currency and other articles missing.
➢ That Veena Manchanda was shifted to the hospital and provided treatment after which her statement was recorded by Inspector Satender Gosain and FIR was registered on the basis of the same.
➢ That immediately raiding parties were constituted by the police and the check at various exit points from where the accused were likely to flee from Delhi including the various Railway Station was directed.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 99 of 117 ➢ That Harjender Kumar the brother in law of Veena Manchanda also joined one of the Police Team with SI Pukhraj who was going to New Delhi Railway Station as he was in a position to identify the accused persons. ➢ That at New Delhi Railway Station the accused Sanjay and Umesh were apprehended and arrested on the pointing out of Harjender Kumar and large amount of robbed articles and cash were recovered from their possession.
➢ That on interrogation the accused Sanjay and Umesh disclosed that the other accused were in the process of fleeing from Nangloi Railway Station on which they led the police team to Nangloi Railway Station from where the accused Ranjeet, Suraj and Amlesh (juvenile) were apprehended and large amount of robbed articles were recovered from their possession while the accused Pardeep Yadav (Proclaimed Offender) managed to escape from the Railway Station.
(127) In so far as the recovery of the stolen articles is concerned, (except the cash allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Sant Kumar), has been proved and established. The Medical and Forensic Evidence are compatible to the oral testimony of the victim Veena Manchanda and lend independent confirmation to the same. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 100 of 117 (128) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency does not negate the offence. (129) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (130) In view of the above discussions and on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and other material which has come on record, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are hereby held guilty for the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 101 of 117 offence under Section 395/34 Indian Penal Code. (131) Further, in so far as the accused Ranjeet is concerned, he is also held guilty for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. (132) In so far as the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code framed against the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya is concerned, I may observe that since the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya have been identified as the same persons who who had committed dacoity upon the complainant/ victim Veena Manchanda, hence technically the provisions of Section 412 Indian Penal Code are not separately made out as the ingredients of Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code are covered within the definition of Robbery as provided under Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code and technically would cover the offence of Dacoity which is Robbery committed conjointly by five or more persons. Therefore, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code.
(133) However, in so far as the accused Sant Kumar is concerned, he is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. He is on bail. His surety be discharged as per rules. State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 102 of 117 (134) Be listed for arguments on sentence qua Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya on 21.10.2014.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 14.10.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 103 of 117 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 113/2013 Unique Case ID: 02404R0207052011 State Vs. (1) Sanjay Mukhiya S/o Bacchalal Mukhiya R/o Village Ladaniya, Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar. (Convicted) (2) Ranjit Kumar S/o Ravi Shankar R/o Village Nahil, PS Kubaya, Distt.: Shahjahanpur, Bihar. (Convicted) (3) Umesh Mukhiya S/o Sube Mukhiya R/o Village Kabilasa PS Ladaniya Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar. (Convicted) (4) Suraj Kumar Mukhiya S/o Laxmi Mukhiya R/o Village Kabilasa PS Ladaniya Disst.: Madhubani, Bihar. (Convicted) (5) Sant Kumar @ Rajesh S/o Ram Dayal R/o House No. D 306, Extension II Nangloi, Delhi. (Acquitted) State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 104 of 117 (6) Pradeep Yadav (Since Proclaimed Offender) FIR No. : 137/2011 Police Station : Maurya Enclave Under Section : 395/397/411/34 Indian Penal Code. Date of conviction : 14.10.2014 Argument concluded on : 21.10.2014 Date of Sentence : 28.10.2014 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
All convicts namely Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are in Judicial Custody with Sh. Ansar Ahmed, Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(1) As per the allegations, on 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM at House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Maurya Enclave, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Umesh Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya and Ranjeet Kumar along with one Pradeep Yadav (Since Proclaimed Offender) and one Amlesh Yadav (since Juvenile), committed a dacoity of two laptops make SONY and HP and cash Rs.13,25,000/ and 15 to 20 Tolas of gold jewellery, artificial jewellery, coins and foreign currency and mobile phone belonging to the complainant Veena Manchanda and her family members. It is further alleged that during the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 105 of 117 commission of the dacoity as aforesaid, the accused Ranjeet Kumar used a deadly weapon i.e. Khukri.
(2) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at Nangloi Railway Station the accused Suraj Mukhiya dishonestly received/ retained stolen property i.e. Rs 1.5 lacs, a black color NOKIA E72, two writs watches, 14 silver coins of 10 gm each, four artificial bangles of golden color, two gold bangles, a diamond ring with gold, a pair of gold tops, two boarding passes of Manchanda / Harpreet Kaur and two small silver kara, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(3) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at New Delhi Railway Station, the accused Umesh Mukhiya dishonestly received/ retained stolen property i.e. Rs. One lac, two writs watches, one laptop SONY VIO, five artificial jewelery, one passport in the name of Dalbir Singh Manchanda, ten silver coins of 10 gm each, to gold kara, a diamond ring with gold, a mangalsutra black color with gold and two silver pyajeb gold plated, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 106 of 117 belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(4) It is further alleged that on 03.05.2011 at New Delhi Railway Station, the accused Sanjay Mukhiya dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. one handicam of make SONY, one laptop make HP, Rs. two lacs, two writs watches, two bangles of gold with diamond, one gold chain of platinum color, one gold kara gents, one gold and diamond mixed ring, one gold locket and one PAN card of Sandeep Kumar, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(5) It is further alleged that on 04.05.2011 at House No. D306 Extension, 2D Nangloi, Delhi, the accused Sant Kumar @ Rajesh dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. Rs, one lac ninety one thousand, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of daicoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of daicoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(6) It is also alleged that 03.05.2011 at Nangloi Railway Station State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 107 of 117 Ranjeet Kumar dishonestly received or retained stolen property i.e. Rs. 1.65 lacs, two writ watches, two gold bangles, one gold chain, one pair of ear tops, four silver coins of 20 gms, one silver coin of 50 gm, one silver biscuit of 20 gm, one receipt in the name of Veena Manchanda dated 26.12.2006, 1215 US dollar, 70 Hong Kong dollar, 124 China Yuan and 10 Dihram, the possession whereof he knew or had reasons to believe to have been transfered by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly received from a person, whom he knew or had reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, the property which he knew or had reasons to believe to have been stolen.
(7) However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the victim Veena Manchanda, the Medical, Forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this court vide a detailed Judgment dated 14.10.2014 has held the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya, guilty for the offence under Section 395/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused Ranjeet has also been held guilty for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. However, the accused Sant Kumar has been acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. (8) Vide the detail judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that the accused Sanjay Mukhiya was employed as a domestic help at the residence of the State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 108 of 117 complainant Veena Manchanda i.e. House No. 2020, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi where the accused Suraj and Amlesh (Juvenile) had also previously worked temporarily as Domestic Helps for about 1520 days. The accused Pradeep and Ranjeet frequented and had access inside this house being friend of these persons i.e. Umesh, Suraj, Amlesh and Sanjay; that 03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM the complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda was in her room at her House No. 202, Vaishali, Pitampura while her servant i.e. accused Sanjay Mukhiya was sitting in the lobby; that suddenly the door of her bedroom opened and she saw that accused Suraj Mukhiya, Pardeep (proclaimed Offender), Umesh, Amlesh (Juvenile) and Ranjeet whom she knew previously had entered her room while Sanjay remained sitting in the lobby; that accused Umesh was having red coloured chemical on his hands and he tried to close the eyes of Veena Manchanda on which she got scared at the same time; that one of the accused exhorted others saying "Push her on the floor" i.e. "...ise farsh par leta do...." after which the accused pushed her on the floor and Pradeep, Suraj and Ranjeet started beating her and gave her blows and kicks (did maarpitai with her); that when Veena Manchanda objected to the same, the accused Ranjeet showed her a knife and threatened her not to raise alarm and pressed her mouth; that in this process Veena Manchanda gave a teeth bite on the index finger of Ranjeet who had gagged i.e. pressed her mouth when blood started oozing out from the index finger of Ranjeet; that the accused then took Veena Manchanda near the bathroom and tied her mouth, hands State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 109 of 117 and legs with chunnies; that in the meanwhile Sanjay also entered the room and removed the keys of the Almirahs from the drawer of the bed after which he along with Umesh and Amlesh (Juvenile) started removing the cash, electronic and jewelery kept in the Almirah; that before fleeing/ escaping from the spot, the accused had also lifted her mobile phone and also cut the wire of the landline phone.
(9) The prosecution has also been able to establish that thereafter, Veena Manchanda somehow managed to free and untie herself and opened the speaker of another land line phone and informed her husband about the incident who at that time was at his shop; that Dalbir Manchanda immediately made a 100 number call and rushed back home and checked the Almirah, when he found a cash amount Rs.13 lacs, 15 to 20 tola jewellery, artificial jewellery, coins and some foreign currency and other articles missing; that Veena Manchanda was shifted to the hospital and provided treatment after which her statement was recorded by Inspector Satender Gosain and FIR was registered on the basis of the same; that immediately raiding parties were constituted by the police and the check at various exit points from where the accused were likely to flee from Delhi including the various Railway Station was directed; that Harjender Kumar the brother in law of Veena Manchanda also joined one of the Police Team with SI Pukhraj who was going to New Delhi Railway Station as he was in a position to identify the accused persons; that at New Delhi Railway Station the accused Sanjay and Umesh were apprehended and arrested on State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 110 of 117 the pointing out of Harjender Kumar and large amount of robbed articles and cash were recovered from their possession; that on interrogation the accused Sanjay and Umesh disclosed that the other accused were in the process of fleeing from Nangloi Railway Station on which they led the police team to Nangloi Railway Station from where the accused Ranjeet, Suraj and Amlesh (juvenile) were apprehended and large amount of robbed articles were recovered from their possession while the accused Pardeep Yadav (Proclaimed Offender) managed to escape from the Railway Station.
(10) This Court has observed that in so far as the recovery of the stolen articles is concerned, (except the cash allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused Sant Kumar), the same has been duly proved and established. Further, the Medical and Forensic Evidence are found compatible to the oral testimony of the victim Veena Manchanda and lend independent confirmation to the same.
(11) This being the background the accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 395/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Ranjeet has also been held guilty for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of Arms Act. However, accused Sanjay Mukhiya, Suraj Mukhiya, Ranjeet and Umesh Mukhiya are acquitted of the charge Section 412 Indian Penal State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 111 of 117 Code.
(12) In so far as the accused Sant Kumar is concerned, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. (13) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Sanjay Mukhiya is aged about 22 years, unmarried, totally illiterate, doing private job, having a family comprising of aged parents, three brothers (two married and one unmarried) and three sisters (all married). Apart from the present case, he was involved in one another case at Mumbai wherein he has been acquitted.
(14) The convict Suraj Mukhiya is aged about 22 years, unmarried, totally illiterate, labour by profession, having a family comprising of aged parents, one younger brother and two younger sisters (all illiterate). Apart from the present case, he was involved in two other cases at Mumbai wherein he has been acquitted.
(15) The convict Umesh Mukhiya is aged about 22 years, unmarried, totally illiterate, labour by profession, having a family comprising of aged parents, three brothers (one married and two unmarried) and two sisters (both married). Apart from the present case, he was involved in one another case at Mumbai wherein he has been acquitted.
(16) The convict Ranjeet Kumar is aged about 27 years, 8th class pass, married, having a family comprising of aged parents, one yelder State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 112 of 117 sister (married), wife and one daughter. Apart from the present case, he was involved in one another case at Mumbai wherein he has been acquitted.
(17) Ld. Defence Counsel on the other hand has vehemently argued that though the convicts were involved in other cases at Mumbai yet they have been acquitted in the same and hence keeping in view their young age and other family circumstances since any harsh view at this stage would be detrimental for the entire future of the convicts a lenient view be taken against them.
(18) I have considered the rival contentions. I may observe that in the recent past Delhi has experienced a spurt and rise in the incidents of snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder and other kinds of crime. There has been a 43.6 percent increase in Delhi's crime graph in 2013 over 2012. A staggering 73,958 cases were registered under the Indian Penal Code in 2013 up from 51,479 in the previous year.
(19) The deteriorating law and order problem of the City is a matter of serious concern and immediate steps are required to be taken at all levels for ensuring security and safety of the citizens. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. Criminals are unhesitatingly and indiscriminately using dangerous arms/ weapons on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 113 of 117 terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. The courts are required to find answers to the new challenges facing the society and to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should be conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of the crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
(20) There was no previous animosity between the convicts and the victims and the intent was solely monetary gain. Undue sympathy, under these circumstances, to impose inadequate sentence upon the convicts who are habitual and repeat offenders would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to award a sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. (Ref:
Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463).
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 114 of 117 (21) In the present case the victim Veena Manchanda was the soft/ vulnerable target since she was alone at her house at the time of incident.
The convicts were previously involved in a case under Section 307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act bearing FIR No.13/2011, PS Juhu (Mumbai). Though they have been acquitted in the said case but it stands confirmed from the same and also from the manner in which the offence has been committed in broad daylight shows that the convicts have no respect for law and legal process of this Country and they have an impression that perhaps the Legal System of this Country is incompetent to hold them back for their illegal activities. No doubt, the Indian Legal System particularly the Criminal Justice Mechanism has certain practical failings which is highly disturbing and to some extent appears to have shaken the faith of the people resulting into emboldening of the wrong doers but still I hold that things are not as bad as they may appear. No leniency can be shown to the persons who in their capacity as Domestic Help have abused and exploited the trust so reposed upon them by their employers. In this being the background, I award the following sentence to the convicts: (22) The convict Sanjay Mukhiya is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10 Years) and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ (Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 115 of 117 (23) The convict Umesh Mukhiya is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10 Years) and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/ (Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
(24) The convict Suraj Mukhiya is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10 Years) and fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ (Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
(25) The convict Ranjeet Kumar is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10 Years) and fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ (Ten Thousand) for the offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for One Month.
(26) The convict Ranjeet Kumar is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) Years for the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code.
(27) In so far as the convict Ranjeet Kumar is concerned, both the above sentences shall run concurrently.
(28) Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 116 of 117 for the period already undergone by them as per rules. (29) The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
(30) Copy of the Judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs. One copy of the order on sentence be attached along with the custody warrants of the convicts.
(31) File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up after arrest of the coaccused Pradeep Yadav who is declared Proclaimed Officer.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 28.10.2014 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Sanjay Mukhiya etc., FIR No. 137/2011, PS Maurya Enclave Page 117 of 117